Quincy Institute @QuincyInst

NEW RESEARCH Since the end of the Cold War, America’s poorly calibrated approach to former Soviet states like Ukraine has had disastrous consequences, in part precipitating the West’s geopolitical crisis with Russia. While Washington may hope to shift its focus toward competition with Beijing, this pivot is bound to fail so long as America maintains the same misguided approach to other states on Russia’s periphery like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova. Past calls for integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, for example, created dangerous geopolitical gray zones that contributed to Russian aggression while failing to secure Western military commitments to defend these so-called “in-between states.” The best way to advance America’s interests in Europe — avoiding war, promoting stability, and supporting economic development — is to take a different approach to these states, based on four strategic principles: 1.) Rejecting further NATO expansion or other US military guarantees to states along Russia’s border. 2.) Promoting economic connectivity projects across the in-between states. 3.) Encouraging the in-between states to maintain and pursue foreign and trade policy flexibility that permits positive relations with both Western and non–Western partners. 4.) Pairing US regional engagement with targeted confidence-building measures with Russia to prevent dangerous security spirals. Securing a negotiated compromise settlement in Ukraine that guarantees Kyiv a viable economic path into the European Union while establishing formal Ukrainian military neutrality would greatly aid the United States in successfully developing and executing a new blueprint for its approach in Eurasia. Such a deal would offer Washington an opportunity to transform the in-between states into valuable economic partners that directly bolster long-term American industrial competitiveness. The Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, or TRIPP, between Armenia and Azerbaijan, is a positive example that could be expanded on. Continued US support for strategic geoeconomic projects, like TRIPP or the development of Black Sea port infrastructure in Georgia, would not only help the region but also secure Western access to critical minerals and offer alternatives to supply chain choke points. In addition, targeted US diplomatic actions in the region — such as supporting Moldova’s EU integration while helping resolve the Transnistria dispute, advancing dialogue with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, and reestablishing a strategic partnership with Georgia — can play a key role in refocusing US engagement on America’s core interests in the region. By discarding Washington’s open-door policy toward NATO enlargement and embracing prudent, interest-driven economic diplomacy, the United States can safeguard European stability, secure vital resource supply chains, and free up critical national security resources that are necessary for managing greater challenges. The latest from @MEpiskopos and @artinthinks quincyinst.org/research/a-blu…

Can India, China, and Russia be the keys to ending America's reckless war with Iran? @ahandjani lays out what it could look like for @ForeignPolicy. Iran needs two things Washington can't credibly offer: a security guarantee that survives the admin's wanton policies and sanctions relief that isn't contingent on America's goodwill. That's where these three BRICS nations come in. Russia brings two decades of defense-building with Tehran: air defense systems, training, a formal strategic partnership treaty. China's contribution is almost entirely economic. Beijing already buys most of Iran's oil outside the dollar system. Formalizing that investment gives Tehran an economic future Washington can't sanction away. India is the outlier. Their a close US ally that also works with Iran through the Chabahar port. That dual position makes New Delhi one of the only capitals that can talk to both sides without either assuming bad faith. But one reality needs to be reckoned with: "Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi will not rescue US policy out of goodwill." foreignpolicy.com/2026/09/15/onl…

The weapons industry employs more than one lobbyist for every member of Congress... That helps explain why Congress keeps choosing war over peace. As our guest @tori_bateman explains, "It seems like it's an easier thing to do to bomb a country and to keep us in these wars than it is to do the really ridiculously complicated work of diplomacy." Watch the full ep: youtube.com/watch?v=owwFKj…

Twenty-five years ago today, al-Qaida hijackers in passenger planes killed in New York, Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania. What followed didn't just change airport security. It fundamentally changed how America operates. Those who didn't live through 9/11 only know this "new" America, one marked by endless war and mass surveillance. @RStatecraft asked foreign and national security experts — journalists, scholars, activists — what they miss most about the America that existed before the attacks on September 11, 2001. @KatrinaNation, publisher at @thenation, recalled life's slower cadence: "We spent more time living, less on our smartphones and social media platforms. There was more time to think, read, converse about news and ideas. Public life was not mediated by toxic, isolating algorithms." Chas Freeman, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, wrote "I miss the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law. These were the things that made the US great. They have been steadily eroded to create a warfare state in which the executive exercises unbridled power, the legislature defers to the executive, and the courts are politicized." @stephenkinzer, author of "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," reflected on Americans' self image: "Americans used to admire themselves for creating a country that was a force for good in the world. That self-image has been largely shattered. The reality of American power did not change after 9/11, but our fantasy faded." Read the full symposium here: responsiblestatecraft.org/america-before…

🔴LIVE | Twenty-Five Years After 9/11: War, Memory, and the World It Created A conversation featuring @AdamNoahWho, @DavidKieran2, @SaltzmanGIIS, Dr. Sultan Alamer, & Melani McAlister @ElliottSchoolGW x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Twenty-Five Years After 9/11: War, Memory, and the World It Created x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

NEW RESEARCH Washington is waiting out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The implicit assumption is that he alone is responsible for policy differences between the United States and Israel. A new government under former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett or former army chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot would set things right and revive Israel’s reputation in American public opinion. It is a comfortable assumption — but also a deep misreading of what has gone wrong and what fixing it requires. The crisis in US–Israel relations does not originate solely with Netanyahu or his partners. It comes from policies with broad Israeli backing that his successors would likely continue, whatever personal reservations they might harbor. Bennett supports building in the E1 corridor, which would sever the northern West Bank from the southern and make a Palestinian state deeply impractical. Eisenkot has recently said that to do so would be “a mistake” but without pledging to drop it. On the Gaza Strip, a new cabinet would likely oppose renewed Jewish settlement in the enclave but still leave governance bound to President Donald Trump’s peace plan through 2027, as the Board of Peace slips and reconstruction shrinks to a pilot program in Rafah. On Iran, there is a strong Israeli consensus to continue to confront Tehran. Divisions are about competence and alliance management, not core strategies. Settler violence in the West Bank is where a new government would move fastest, but the ceiling is low. Removing Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir would reduce state cover for extremist networks and lax enforcement. But today only three percent of cases against Israeli settler violence end in conviction; a situation that Bennett or Eisenkot could remedy. The sharpest measure is the benchmark of normalization with Arab states. Saudi Arabia’s threshold for normalization is a “clear and irreversible path” toward Palestinian statehood. Bennett and Eisenkot oppose Palestinian statehood. Eisenkot wants to keep the Jordan Valley and every settlement bloc under Israeli control. Neither reaches the Saudi threshold. American public opinion is further out of reach. Gallup shows sympathy for Israel over Palestinians has flipped for the first time since 2001: 60 percent of Americans view Israel unfavorably. Pollsters call the shift structural, having accumulated over years of war rather than in response to any one leader. A friendlier face in Jerusalem will not reverse a long-term trend accelerated by the Gaza death toll, West Bank violence, and war with Iran. None of this makes Bennett or Eisenkot another Netanyahu. Either of the former would be easier to work with, more predictable, and less inclined to meddle in American politics. That is worth something. However, it is not a reset. Policies serving American interests in peace and stability in the region will still need to be at the center of bilateral diplomacy. Read the latest from Steve Simon here: quincyinst.org/research/a-new…

NEW ALWAYS AT WAR Congress has the constitutional power to end a war. It keeps choosing not to use it. We asked the Quincy Institute's @tori_bateman why, on this week's episode. Spoiler alert: they don’t lack the power. They lack the courage. youtube.com/watch?v=owwFKj…

🔴LIVE | Book Talk | Imperialist Realism A conversation featuring @dbessner & @AnnelleSheline x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Book Talk | Imperial Realism x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Here's #BRICS in three charts: The first: BRICS has overtaken the G7 in economic output! This is even more true for the expanded BRICS (10 states) China does much of the work (as expected) but other BRICS states are also doing their part!

🔥Latest Always at War podcast, w/ @ckayerawlings & @alexjordanATL, featuring @QuincyInst's Advocacy Director @tori_bateman Why are think tankers like lizards in glass tanks? 🦎 Grateful for all Tori's work getting OUR lizardly work onto the Hill youtube.com/watch?v=owwFKj…

.@QuincyInst NRF @dbessner argues that Americans accept our global empire not because it is righteous but because it is inevitable I'll argue that there are a lot of folks at State who still believe it is righteous 🗓️ Tomorrow, 9/9 🕛 12pm DC, 🕘 9am LA quincyinst.org/events/book-ta…

BRICS keeps growing and Washington keeps misreading why. The bloc, now spanning Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, China, Russia, and a widening circle of partners, isn't the anti-US alliance many in DC assume. It's a loose coalition of states with different political systems united mainly by three things: sovereignty, faith in the UN system, and a shared push on development. The irony is that Washington's own behavior feeds the thing it fears. Every disruption to the multilateral order gives BRICS states more reason to hedge against American unpredictability. The bloc's reformism actually lines up with US interests: new markets, more stable regions, less pressure driving migration. Repairing ties with Brazil and India would do more to check BRICS than any amount of de-dollarization panic. Read the full brief from @globalsarang quincyinst.org/research/cryin…

What Americans want: -Clean drinking water -Safe, well-funded schools and hospitals -Real investment in stopping the climate disasters already hitting communities What Americans get: -Unending war abroad fueled by the empty promises of Washington's war machine. It doesn’t have to be this way.

The Pentagon has failed every financial audit since Congress started requiring them in 2018. That's eight years in a row. It's the only major federal agency that has never passed one. That means auditors haven’t been able to verify: -What weapons and equipment the department actually owns -Where billions of dollars in assets are located -Whether spending matches what Congress approved The Pentagon gets more money from Congress each year than any other agency. And no one, not even the Pentagon, can fully account for where it goes. Maybe that's not incompetence. Money nobody can trace is money nobody can be held accountable for. One thing we do know for certain: while the department can't pass a basic accounting check, weapons CEOs keep getting richer off it.

Things a majority Americans don't want: -The war with Iran -Continued, unchecked aid to Israel -Integrating US and Israeli military sectors -A war with Cuba Things Washington keeps pushing anyway: ^All of the above. Crazy idea, but what if our government reflected Americans’ vision instead?

BRICS — the growing transcontinental coalition of major Global South states such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, and South Africa, and the “Global East” of China and Russia — is not the anti–American alliance Washington fears. It is a reformist, not radical, group. But the more the US disrupts the multilateral framework, the more it reinforces the very rationale — hedging against American unpredictability and global uncertainty — that fuels the grouping’s growth. BRICS is not a formal alliance and will never be one. It is made up of states with very different political systems, bound by a few common interests. The most important of these are respect for state sovereignty, endorsement of the UN system, and focusing on shared challenges such as economic development. The newly expanded BRICS now spans practically all regions of the Global South and includes 10 member states and 10 “partner countries.” Collectively, BRICS surpassed the GDP of the G7 countries — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States — in 2019. The New Development Bank is BRICS’ most successful institution. Notably, no member of the NDB has individual veto power, nor are loans conditioned on standards imposed from above — a stark departure from the intrusive practices of the World Bank. Other initiatives are still a work-in-progress. Washington swings between two unhelpful poles on BRICS: contemptuous dismissal or overhyping the threat of BRICS’ alleged attempts at de-dollarization. But most BRICS members have not supported de-dollarization. While the upcoming BRICS summit in New Delhi will continue work on a member-wide payment system, it is still far from completion, and political will to adopt it remains limited. BRICS is neither irrelevant to the global order nor currently a threat to US interests. Washington should respond proportionately to the signal it represents. Despite emerging internal rifts, BRICS is likely to expand its developmental impact slowly. BRICS’ reformism and developmentalism can align with US interests, opening new markets for US businesses, stabilizing regions, and curbing global migration flows as a byproduct. The United States will benefit by repairing ties with BRICS states, most notably Brazil and India. Washington could also reduce the chances of BRICS emerging as the nucleus of a multi-order world through a selective return to multilateralism and avoiding blunders, like military interventionism, which alienate much of the Global South. Read the latest brief from @globalsarang : quincyinst.org/research/cryin…

🗓️ Wed, Sept 9th 🕛 Noon EDT, 9am PDT 🔗 Register below What can Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War and The Rings of Power tell us about our current moment? Join me & @QuincyInst non-resident fellow @dbessner to discuss his new book, Imperialist Realism quincyinst.org/events/book-ta…

American funded and American supplied weapons are behind a two-year campaign that has degraded much of southern Lebanon's land using white phosphorus munitions, mass building detonations, and aerial herbicide spraying. Lebanon's National Council for Scientific Research estimates $25B in environmental damage from strikes in 2023 and 2024 alone, including forests and olive groves, some of which were centuries old. The demolitions go well beyond the stated justification of destroying Hezbollah infrastructure. Israel's own defense minister has said all homes in these border villages will be destroyed, comparing it to the roughly 90% demolition rate in Gaza's Rafah and Beit Hanoun. He also stated that ~600,000 residents will not be permitted to return to their now destroyed or poisoned villages. The latest from @Janetabouelias in @RStatecraft: responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-destroy…