Category: Full Text Articles – Audio Posts

On March 15, US President Donald Trump ordered large-scale airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels in response to attacks on Red Sea shipping. The Houthis, an armed, Iran-backed group that controls the most populous parts of Yemen, have carried out dozens of attacks against ships in the Red Sea since November 2023, causing disruptions to global shipping.

“Funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at US aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump went on to emphasize that Iran would be held responsible for any future Houthi attacks: “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”

The US president is right that Iran plays a large role in supporting the Houthis. But Tehran is not the group’s only state-level supporter. Russia, too, is an important backer of the group.

Back in October 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that Russia was providing targeting data to the Houthis, which they then used while attacking Western ships. US intelligence sources have also confirmed that Russia’s main intelligence directorate, known as the GRU, operates in Houthi-controlled territory to provide technical assistance to the rebels in their military operations.

Beyond targeting and technical assistance, Russia has also reportedly been involved in discussions about transferring weapons with the Houthis. In the fall of 2024, Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout was reportedly attempting to broker the sale of around ten million dollars’ worth of automatic small arms to the group. Iran was also arbitrating secret talks between Russia and the Houthis for transfers of anti-ship missiles to the militants. Such a deal would allow the Houthis to more accurately strike their targets and pose an even greater threat to US and European ships defending commercial shipping.

The relationship between the Kremlin and the Houthis has not been one-sided. By the summer of 2024, the Houthis provided Russia with hundreds of Yemenis who were reportedly then forced into Russian military training. Many of these unwilling recruits apparently believed that they were signing up for construction jobs. This move provided Moscow with much-needed manpower as it grinds past the third year of its war against Ukraine. The Houthis have also allowed safe passage for Russian ships through the Red Sea, an arrangement that became a more formalized agreement through diplomatic discussions in March 2024.

In some ways, this cooperation between Russia and the Houthis represents a new shift in Russia’s Yemen policy. At the start of Yemen’s civil war in 2011, the Kremlin took a more or less neutral stance toward the main combatants, including the Houthis, the separatist Southern Transitional Council, and the former ruling party. For the past few years, however, Russia appears to be meeting most frequently with Houthi representatives—a diplomatic sign, backed with tangible cooperation, that Russia has taken a particular interest in the group.

In part, Russian collaboration with the Houthis should be understood as a facet of increasing cooperation between US adversaries to counter the West in the Middle East. It also indicates a deepening relationship between Tehran and Moscow. Russia’s support allows the Houthis to continue destabilizing the Red Sea, which puts greater pressure on the United States and its allies and partners in the region. This aids Russia and Iran’s shared interest in creating a multipolar-world order with diminished Western influence abroad. In March 2024, a member of the Houthis’ political bureau asserted that greater Houthi collaboration with Russia and China stems from a “common interest in drowning America, Britain, and the West in the swamp of the Red Sea and on the high seas.” At the very minimum, Russian-aided tumult in the Red Sea undermines the West by drawing Western attention and resources away from other pressing crisis points, including Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

As the United States and Russia continue their talks about the war in Ukraine and diplomatic normalization, US policymakers should not forget Moscow’s involvement in Houthi strikes on commercial ships in the Red Sea. It has already cost the United States more than one billion dollars to respond to Houthi attacks and defend the waterway, through which around 30 percent of global containerized trade transits. While the United States has sought to ensure freedom of navigation against Houthi attacks, so that global trade continues to flow, Russia has aided Houthi operations as a way to ratchet up problems for the United States and its allies and partners.

Trump and US negotiators should refrain from further coddling the Kremlin. The United States already handed some concessions to Moscow in last month’s talks in Riyadh: This included US agreement on helping Russia sell its grain and fertilizer on the world market. Comments from some Trump administration officials also suggest that the White House may make premature concessions to the Kremlin on Ukraine’s future NATO membership prospects, security guarantees, and territory.

Overlooking Russian involvement with the Houthis is a critical error in understanding Moscow’s intentions abroad and toward the West. Now is the time for pressure, not more concessions to the Kremlin.

Katherine Spencer is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. Prior to joining the Atlantic Council, she interned at the American Enterprise Institute, where she focused on domestic developments in Russia and Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The post Trump should not forget the Russian hand behind the Houthis appeared first on Atlantic Council.

On March 31, Forward Defense distinguished fellow Kevin P. Chilton was featured on the Mitchell Institute’s panel, “Setting the Nuclear Deterrence Record Straight: Commanders’ Perspectives.” On the panel, he joined former US Strategic Command commanders Gen. Robert Kehler, USAF (Ret.), and Adm. Charles A. Richard, USN (Ret.), to discuss the realities of nuclear deterrence today. Additionally, the Mitchell Institute highlighted two of Chilton’s policy papers, “On U.S. Nuclear Deterrence” and “Defending the Record on U.S. Nuclear Deterrence.”

Fellow

Kevin P. Chilton

Distinguished Fellow

Forward Defense
Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Cybersecurity
Defense Industry

Forward Defense, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, generates ideas and connects stakeholders in the defense ecosystem to promote an enduring military advantage for the United States, its allies, and partners. Our work identifies the defense strategies, capabilities, and resources the United States needs to deter and, if necessary, prevail in future conflict.

Learn more

The post Gen Kevin P. Chilton, USAF (ret.), featured on the Mitchell Institute’s Commander panel appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The U.S. President Donald Trump’s skepticism toward NATO and opposition to Ukraine’s membership in the alliance have raised concerns about the long-term viability of transatlantic security cooperation. His stance weakens U.S. influence in European security matters and compels European allies to reassess their defense strategies, including the potential creation of an independent military-political bloc led by France, Germany, the UK, and Italy. 

Trump has consistently criticized NATO, calling it obsolete and questioning the financial contributions of member states. His resistance to Ukraine’s NATO membership aligns with his broader skepticism toward U.S. security commitments in Europe. The key aspects of his stance include:

• Opposition to Further NATO Enlargement: Trump views NATO expansion as a provocation toward Russia and a burden on U.S. defense resources.
• Transactional Approach to Alliances: He emphasizes a cost-benefit analysis, urging European allies to increase their military spending.
• Reduced U.S. Leadership in NATO: Trump’s reluctance to support Ukraine’s accession weakens American influence in European security matters.
• After 1945, the U.S. played a central role in shaping the global order:
• NATO (1949): Created to deter Soviet aggression and ensure European security under U.S. leadership.
• Marshall Plan (1948): Rebuilt war-torn Europe, preventing the spread of communism.
• Military Presence: U.S. bases in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere provided stability and deterred adversaries.
• Leadership in Global Institutions: The U.S. helped establish the UN, IMF, and World Bank to foster stability and economic growth.
• 2. How Trump’s Policies Undermine This Legacy
• Weakening NATO’s Credibility: Trump’s threats to withdraw from NATO and demands for European countries to “pay more” create doubts about U.S. commitment. This emboldens adversaries like Russia.
• Encouraging European Strategic Autonomy: His rhetoric forces Europe to consider alternatives, such as an EU-led defense bloc (France, Germany, Italy, UK). This could reduce U.S. influence over European security.
• Questioning the U.S. as a Reliable Partner: Allies are increasingly uncertain whether the U.S. will defend them in a crisis, which weakens American diplomatic leverage.
• Risking a Power Vacuum: If the U.S. retreats, Russia or China could exploit divisions in Europe to expand their influence, undermining Western cohesion.
• 3. Long-Term Consequences for the U.S.
• Loss of Strategic Influence: If Europe develops its own military structures, it may act independently from U.S. interests.
• Erosion of the Transatlantic Alliance: The U.S. could lose key allies in shaping global security policy.
• Greater Instability: A fragmented Western alliance could make future conflicts (e.g., Russian aggression, cyber warfare, terrorism) harder to manage.
• By retreating from European security commitments, Trump risks dismantling the post-WWII order that has kept Europe stable and the U.S. dominant. This could be seen as one of the most significant reversals of American foreign policy in modern history.

Trump’s skepticism toward U.S. security commitments in Europe stems from several key factors:

1. “America First” and Isolationist Tendencies

Trump’s foreign policy emphasizes prioritizing U.S. domestic interests over international alliances. He sees NATO commitments as costly obligations that do not directly benefit the U.S.

2. Burden-Sharing Concerns

Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO allies for not meeting the 2% GDP defense spending target. He argues that the U.S. unfairly bears the financial burden of European defense while European countries free-ride on American military power.

3. View That NATO Provokes Russia

Trump has suggested that NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe unnecessarily antagonizes Russia. He has questioned whether defending smaller states, like Montenegro, is in the U.S. national interest.

4. Skepticism Toward Multilateral Institutions

Trump generally distrusts international organizations, viewing them as bureaucratic and ineffective. He prefers bilateral negotiations, where the U.S. has more leverage, over collective security agreements.

5. Economic Priorities Over Strategic Alliances

Trump tends to view international relations through an economic lens, focusing on trade imbalances rather than strategic military commitments. He sees NATO as a financial drain rather than a vital security alliance.

6. Preference for Deal-Making Over Long-Term Alliances

Rather than relying on formal military alliances, Trump favors personal diplomacy and one-on-one negotiations with world leaders, including Vladimir Putin. This approach undermines traditional alliance structures.

7. Belief That Europe Should Defend Itself

Trump has repeatedly suggested that Europe should take primary responsibility for its own security. He has even hinted at withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, forcing allies to consider alternative security arrangements.

Trump’s opposition to NATO enlargement erodes U.S. leadership in European defense in the following ways:

1. Erosion of NATO’s Deterrence Posture: A weakened U.S. commitment may embolden Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.
2. European Uncertainty: Allies question Washington’s reliability, prompting discussions about greater European defense autonomy.
3. Potential Shifts in Alliance Dynamics: European countries may seek alternative security arrangements outside of NATO’s traditional framework.

If NATO’s cohesion weakens, a European-led security bloc could emerge, primarily driven by France, Germany, the UK, and Italy. Key characteristics of such an alliance include:

• Autonomous European Defense Initiatives: Expansion of existing frameworks like the European Defense Fund and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO).
• Enhanced Military Integration: Joint military commands and increased coordination on defense procurement.
• Limited Dependence on the U.S.: Strategic independence from Washington in case of future NATO uncertainty.

Pros and Cons of a European-Led Defense Bloc

Pros:

• Strengthened European strategic autonomy;
• Greater responsiveness to regional security threats;
• Enhanced defense industrial cooperation;

Cons:

• High financial costs and logistical challenges;
• Potential for divisions among European states;
• Weaker collective deterrence without U.S. military power;

A restructured security alliance in Europe could resemble the Western European Union (WEU), a Cold War-era military organization. However, differences exist:

• The WEU was largely inactive, whereas a new alliance would require a proactive security posture.
• Unlike NATO, a European bloc would lack the nuclear umbrella provided by the U.S.
• Political consensus within Europe remains uncertain, given diverging national interests.

If NATO weakens under Trump’s policies, the U.S. faces several strategic challenges:

• Diminished Global Influence: A fractured NATO would reduce America’s ability to shape European security.
• Stronger Russian Geopolitical Position: Russia could exploit divisions within the West.
• Increased European Defense Expenditures: U.S. defense industries might lose European contracts as the EU prioritizes internal production.

Trump’s resistance to NATO’s expansion is driven by several factors:

• Desire to Reduce U.S. Military Commitments: Prefers burden-sharing among allies.
• Belief That NATO Provokes Russia: Sees expansion as a threat to U.S.-Russia relations.
• Isolationist Tendencies: Favors prioritizing domestic issues over global security commitments.

Trump’s NATO policies have far-reaching implications, challenging the alliance’s stability and pushing European allies toward alternative security arrangements. While a European-led defense bloc could emerge, it would face challenges in replacing NATO’s capabilities. A weakened NATO could diminish U.S. global influence and embolden adversaries, raising serious concerns for transatlantic security. Moving forward, the U.S. and its allies must reassess their commitment to collective defense to prevent a geopolitical vacuum that could benefit rivals like Russia and China.

U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) adds Apache Tomcat flaw to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added an Apache Tomcat path equivalence vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-24813, to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

The Apache Tomcat vulnerability CVE-2025-24813 was recently disclosed and is being actively exploited just 30 hours after a public PoC was released.

The issue is a path equivalence flaw in Apache Tomcat that allows remote code execution or information disclosure if specific conditions are met. The vulnerability affects multiple versions including 11.0.0-M1 to 11.0.2, 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.34, and 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.98. Exploitation requires write-enabled default servlet, partial PUT support, and specific file handling conditions.

“The original implementation of partial PUT used a temporary file based on the user provided file name and path with the path separator replaced by “.”.” reads the advisory.

“If all of the following were true, a malicious user was able to view security sensitive files and/or inject content into those files:

• writes enabled for the default servlet (disabled by default)
• support for partial PUT (enabled by default)
• a target URL for security sensitive uploads that is a sub-directory of a target URL for public uploads
• attacker knowledge of the names of security sensitive files being uploaded
• the security sensitive files also being uploaded via partial PUT

If all of the following were true, a malicious user was able to perform remote code execution:

• writes enabled for the default servlet (disabled by default)
• support for partial PUT (enabled by default)
• application was using Tomcat’s file based session persistence with the default storage location
• application included a library that may be leveraged in a deserialization attack”

Tomcat versions 9.0.99, 10.1.35, and 11.0 addressed the vulnerability.

Wallarm researchers confirmed active exploitation of the flaw and added that attackers can hijack Apache Tomcat servers with a single PUT API request. PoC is online.

“A devastating new remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability, CVE-2025-24813, is now actively exploited in the wild. ” reads the advisory published by Wallarm. “Attackers need just one PUT API request to take over vulnerable Apache Tomcat servers. The exploit, originally published by a Chinese forum user iSee857, is already available online: CVE-2025-24813 PoC by iSee857.”

The attack exploits Tomcat’s session persistence and partial PUT requests by uploading a malicious Java session file and triggering deserialization via a GET request.

The attack involves two steps:

1. Uploading a Malicious Serialized Session – The attacker sends a PUT request containing a base64-encoded ysoserial gadget chain, storing it in Tomcat’s session directory.
2. Triggering Execution via Session Cookie – A GET request with the JSESSIONID referencing the malicious session forces Tomcat to deserialize and execute the payload, granting remote access.

“This attack is dead simple to execute and requires no authentication. The only requirement is that Tomcat is using file-based session storage, which is common in many deployments.” concludes the advisory. “Worse, base64 encoding allows the exploit to bypass most traditional security filters, making detection challenging.”

Wallarm researchers warn that most Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) fail to detect this attack because the PUT request appears normal and lacks obvious malicious content. The payload is base64-encoded, evading pattern-based detection, and the attack occurs in two steps, with execution happening only during deserialization. Additionally, most WAFs do not thoroughly inspect uploaded files or track multi-step exploits. As a result, by the time organizations notice the breach in their logs, it is already too late.

Users are recommended to update their affected Tomcat versions immediately to mitigate potential threats.

According to Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 22-01: Reducing the Significant Risk of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, FCEB agencies have to address the identified vulnerabilities by the due date to protect their networks against attacks exploiting the flaws in the catalog.

Experts also recommend private organizations review the Catalog and address the vulnerabilities in their infrastructure.

CISA orders federal agencies to fix this vulnerability by April 22, 2025.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, CISA)

Russia’s Ukraine invasion continued to lose momentum in March 2025, with the Kremlin’s territorial gains reportedly falling for a fourth consecutive month. According to new data from the Institute for the Study of War, Russian forces captured 240 square kilometers of Ukrainian land throughout March, representing the smallest monthly total since the current wave of offensive operations began in summer 2024.

News of Russia’s slowing advance comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin claims that his invading army currently holds the “strategic initiative” along the entire front line of the war in Ukraine. “There are now reasons to believe we can finish off” the Ukrainian military, he told submarine crews last week during a visit to the north Russian port city of Murmansk.

While Putin predicts impending Russian victory, the evidence on the ground in Ukraine would seem to suggest otherwise. Far from being on the verge of crumbling, Ukraine’s defensive lines have strengthened significantly in recent months. As a result, advancing Russian forces continue to suffer heavy losses without achieving any meaningful breakthroughs.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukrainian commanders are well aware that the recent lull in Russian battlefield gains may only be a temporary phenomenon as Putin’s army regroups following months of intense fighting. Officials and analysts in Kyiv are now warning that preparations are likely well underway for a major new Russian offensive that is expected to begin in the coming weeks and last until late in 2025.

Putin hopes this new campaign can help strengthen his position as negotiations intensify over a possible compromise settlement to end the war. Speaking last week in Paris, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused the Kremlin dictator of “dragging out talks and trying to get the United States stuck in endless and pointless discussions about fake conditions just to buy time and then try to grab more land.”

Eurasia Center events

Online Event
Mon, March 31, 2025 • 10:00 am ET

What’s next for the Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia?

Conflict
Europe & Eurasia
Human Rights
Resilience & Society

Russia’s modest battlefield gains since the start of the current year provide important perspective at a time when international media coverage and Western commentaries often create the misleading impression that Ukraine’s position is hopeless. In reality, the Ukrainian army has stood up to the full might of the Russian military for more than three years and represents a formidable obstacle to Putin’s plans for the complete subjugation of the country.

Today’s Ukrainian army is by far the largest and most experienced force in Europe, and is backed by a rapidly expanding domestic defense industry that already accounts for around forty percent of Ukraine’s military needs. Since early 2022, Ukrainian troops have succeeded in liberating around half of all the territory occupied by Russia, and have won a string of famous victories in the Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson regions.

Over the past three years, Ukraine has also emerged as a technologically advanced drone warfare superpower. Ukrainian drone manufacturers now produce millions of drones each year and continue to innovate on a daily basis. This is having a huge impact on the battlefield, where drones now account for well over half of all Russian casualties.

At sea, marine drones have enabled Ukraine to sink or damage around one-third of Russia’s entire Black Sea Fleet. This has transformed the Battle of the Black Sea and forced the remainder of Russia’s warships to retreat from Crimea. Meanwhile, Ukrainian commanders are using the country’s expanding arsenal of long-range drones and domestically produced cruise missiles to bring Putin’s invasion home by striking military and energy industry infrastructure deep inside Russia.

The remarkable evolution of the Ukrainian Armed Forces since February 2022 should give pause to all those who insist that Ukraine “has no cards” to play in future negotiations. While Kyiv cannot realistically hope to match Russia’s overwhelming advantages in terms of manpower, firepower, funding, and industrial capacity, Ukraine is now a major military power in its own right and will not agree to any peace deal that leaves the continued existence of the country in doubt.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Further reading

UkraineAlert
Mar 20, 2025

Putin is ruthlessly erasing Ukrainian identity in Russian-occupied Ukraine

By
Peter Dickinson

Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin is pursuing policies in Russian-occupied Ukraine that almost certainly meet the definition of ethnic cleansing and may qualify as genocide, writes Peter Dickinson.

Civil Society
Conflict

UkraineAlert
Mar 26, 2025

If Trump wants peace in Ukraine, he must increase the pressure on Putin

By
Doug Klain

Weeks after Ukraine backed a US proposal for an unconditional ceasefire, Russia continues to stall and push for further concessions. If Trump wants to secure peace, he must increase the pressure on Putin, writes Doug Klain.

Conflict
Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert
Mar 18, 2025

Britain takes the lead as Europe seeks to boost support for Ukraine

By
Alina Hrytsenko

With the future of US support for Ukraine in doubt, Britain is leading European efforts to bolster the Ukrainian war effort and deny Putin an historic victory that would place the whole of Europe in peril, writes Alina Hrytsenko.

Conflict
Defense Industry

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Russian advance slows in March as Putin’s invasion loses momentum appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Russia has recently undertaken several steps toward legitimizing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan:​

Initiating Legal Processes to Delist the Taliban as a Terrorist Organization:

In March 2025, Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office formally petitioned the Supreme Court to remove the Taliban from the nation’s list of terrorist organizations. The court has scheduled a hearing for April 17 to deliberate on this request

Despite the Taliban’s terrorist designation since 2003, Russia has hosted multiple diplomatic meetings with Taliban representatives, viewing engagement as essential for stabilizing Afghanistan and combating groups like ISIS In December 2024, Russia’s State Duma approved the first reading of a bill that would facilitate the removal of the Taliban from the list of banned terrorist organizations, marking a legislative move toward formal recognition. 

President Vladimir Putin referred to the Taliban as a “trusted ally” in combating terrorism, indicating a significant shift in Russia’s official stance toward the group.

These actions reflect Russia’s strategic interest in engaging with the Taliban to enhance its influence in Central Asia and address regional security concerns.​

Russia’s growing engagement with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has raised significant geopolitical concerns. Despite the Taliban being designated as a terrorist organization in many countries, including Russia itself, Moscow has maintained diplomatic relations and provided economic and political support to the regime. 

Several strategic and pragmatic factors drive Russia’s support for the Taliban:

• Security and Regional Stability – Russia fears that instability in Afghanistan could lead to the spread of extremism and terrorism into Central Asia, a region that Moscow considers within its sphere of influence. By engaging with the Taliban, Russia seeks to establish cooperative security arrangements that limit the influence of groups such as ISIS-K. Their relationship with the Taliban and Russia is complex and distinct from broader Russia-Taliban ties.  Unlike the Taliban, which seeks national control of Afghanistan, ISIS-K aims for a global jihadist caliphate and views the Taliban as insufficiently extreme. Since 2015, ISIS-K has been responsible for deadly attacks against both the Taliban and civilians in Afghanistan.  The Taliban have fought ISIS-K aggressively, making them an unlikely direct beneficiary of Russia-Taliban cooperation.

Russia sees ISIS-K as a security threat, particularly due to its ability to recruit from Central Asia. Russian intelligence has warned about ISIS-K’s plans to target Moscow and its allies in the region. This contrasts with Russia’s growing cooperation with the Taliban, which Moscow views as a stabilizing force (despite its extremist nature). While the U.S. opposes both the Taliban and ISIS-K, its counterterrorism focus on ISIS-K is more direct. The U.S. has conducted drone strikes and intelligence operations specifically targeting ISIS-K leaders. Russia-Taliban cooperation could complicate U.S. efforts by creating a security environment where counter-ISIS-K missions become harder to execute.

Russia and the Taliban could develop an intelligence-sharing mechanism against ISIS-K, further excluding the U.S. from counterterrorism operations.

This would mean that Russia, not the U.S., becomes the key foreign power dictating Afghanistan’s internal security policies.

• Russia sees ISIS-K as a security threat, particularly due to its ability to recruit from Central Asia.

Russia’s engagement with the Taliban weakens international efforts to isolate the group, potentially providing it with economic and military resources that could be used to destabilize the region.

More on this story: Russia’s weaponization of the Taliban

1. The Taliban’s rule has allowed Afghanistan to become a potential safe haven for extremist groups. Russia’s support complicates efforts by the U.S. and EU to counter terrorist threats emanating from Afghanistan.

Geopolitical Shifts – Russia’s involvement strengthens an alternative power bloc that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan, reducing Western leverage in South and Central Asia.

Refugee and Humanitarian Crises – Increased legitimacy and resources for the Taliban may prolong its authoritarian rule, worsening human rights conditions and triggering further refugee outflows that could strain EU borders.

Russia’s policy toward the Taliban is closely linked to its broader confrontation with the United States. By engaging with the Taliban, Moscow aims to:

Russia seeks to erode the legacy of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and portray Washington’s withdrawal as a failure.

Russia’s outreach to the Taliban aligns with its broader efforts to foster ties with anti-Western regimes.

1. Russia may use its relationship with the Taliban as a bargaining chip in diplomatic negotiations with the U.S., particularly concerning sanctions and geopolitical conflicts.

Despite officially designating the Taliban as a terrorist organization, Russia has adopted a pragmatic approach to dealing with the group. This apparent contradiction can be explained by:

1. Russia prioritizes practical geopolitical interests over ideological consistency.
2. Russia acknowledges that the Taliban is the de facto authority in Afghanistan and sees engagement as necessary for securing its interests.
3. Russia has a history of engaging with militant groups when it suits its strategic needs, similar to its policies in Syria and Africa.
4. Russia’s engagement with the Taliban allows it to portray itself as a pragmatic power that deals with realities on the ground, while simultaneously challenging Western narratives on terrorism.

Russia’s support for the Taliban is driven by security, economic, and geopolitical considerations. While this policy serves Moscow’s strategic interests, it creates challenges for the U.S. and EU in terms of counterterrorism, regional stability, and geopolitical influence. Furthermore, Russia’s engagement with the Taliban is closely linked to its broader confrontation with the West. By ignoring the Taliban’s designation as a terrorist group, Russia demonstrates a flexible, interest-driven approach to foreign policy. This evolving dynamic underscores the need for the U.S. and EU to reassess their strategies in Afghanistan and the broader region.

Russia’s growing ties with the Taliban could expand Moscow’s strategic footprint in Afghanistan, reducing U.S. influence in the region. This could limit American diplomatic, security, and intelligence-gathering capabilities in Afghanistan.

• Russia’s engagement with the Taliban could contribute to a broader anti-U.S. bloc, potentially involving China, Iran, and Pakistan. This could undermine U.S. efforts to isolate adversarial regimes and contain extremism.
• Russia may provide military equipment, intelligence, or financial assistance to the Taliban, enhancing their ability to maintain control and resist international pressure. If Moscow helps legitimize Taliban rule, it could weaken U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to push for human rights reforms in Afghanistan.
• The Taliban’s control of Afghanistan has led to concerns about terrorist groups operating in the region. If Russia and the Taliban develop closer security ties, it could complicate U.S. counterterrorism efforts, particularly against ISIS-K and al-Qaeda.

• Russia may use its Taliban connections to expand influence in Central Asia, challenging U.S. partnerships with countries like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
• This could weaken U.S. military and intelligence cooperation in the region, making it harder to monitor terrorist threats.

• If Russia secures energy deals with the Taliban, it could limit U.S. influence over Afghanistan’s natural resources and economic reconstruction.
• Russian investments in Afghan infrastructure may also give Moscow leverage over regional trade routes, reducing U.S. economic influence.

• Afghanistan, under Taliban rule, could become a hub for Russia to bypass Western sanctions, engaging in illicit trade and financial transactions.
• This could weaken the effectiveness of U.S. economic measures against Russia.

Deepening Russia-Taliban ties threaten U.S. strategic interests by strengthening an anti-Western axis, undermining counterterrorism efforts, and reducing American influence in Afghanistan and Central Asia. The U.S. will need to monitor these developments closely and adapt its regional strategy accordingly.

• Russia’s security services view the Taliban as a stabilizing force in Afghanistan compared to the chaos of U.S. occupation and the rise of ISIS-K.
• The Federal Security Service (FSB) and Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) likely support engagement with the Taliban to maintain influence in Afghanistan and prevent jihadist spillover into Central Asia.
• The  Russian military intelligence may also see value in Taliban cooperation for counterintelligence and regional security coordination.

More on this story: Russia provides funding for the Taliban in Afghanistan

More on this story: Tasks and grounds for Russia to interact with the Taliban through military intelligence

More on this story: Any deal the US makes with the Taliban is likely to empower the latter

More on this story: Kremlin takes advantage of contacts with Taliban to answer charge of Russian bounties

2. Russian Foreign Ministry (Led by Sergey Lavrov)

• Russia’s Foreign Ministry has maintained diplomatic contacts with the Taliban for years, even before the U.S. withdrawal.
• Lavrov (Bogdanov, his deputy) has hosted Taliban delegations in Moscow, advocating for a “realistic” approach to recognizing their rule.
• The Ministry argues that engagement is necessary to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failed state that could fuel terrorism.

Russian Eurasianists, including ideologues like Alexander Dugin, view Taliban control as a way to push the U.S. out of the region and strengthen Russian influence.

• Russian energy companies and trade groups see Afghanistan as a potential transit route for regional energy projects, including pipelines and mineral extraction.
• Rosatom and Rosneft, among other firms, are exploring economic partnerships, especially if the Taliban can ensure stability.

Russian state media (RT, Sputnik) often portrays Taliban governance as more stable than Western-backed regimes, shaping public opinion in favor of engagement.

port for Taliban legitimization in Russia is driven by intelligence agencies, the Foreign Ministry, geopolitical strategists, economic stakeholders, and anti-Western political circles. The Kremlin sees Afghanistan under the Taliban as an opportunity to expand Russian influence while countering Western power.

The U.S. has several options to counter Russia’s deepening ties with the Taliban:
 Reinforcing counterterrorism alliances with regional partners like India and Central Asian governments.
 Strengthening sanctions enforcement to block Russia-Taliban financial networks.
 Supporting internal opposition movements within Afghanistan to challenge Russian-backed Taliban control.
Enhancing intelligence operations to monitor Russian activities in Afghanistan.

More on this story: Inghimasi of the Islamic State are behind the attack on Crocus City Hall

As the new United States administration seeks to transform the country’s foreign policy, one of President Trump’s top priorities is a peace agreement to end the Russian war in Ukraine. However, there is a very real danger that the US leader’s eagerness to strike a deal with Vladimir Putin could lead to a flawed settlement that will undermine the foundations of international security for many years to come.

Trump aims to secure peace in Ukraine as part of a broader shift involving a reduced US commitment to Europe and a strategic pivot toward Asia. This goal is actually very much in line with longstanding United States foreign policy. However, with Putin’s Russia now an openly expansionist power and European nations dangerously weakened by decades of defense sector complacency, this is not the ideal time for an American withdrawal.

In the current climate of mounting international instability, maximum Western unity is required. This is essential in order to avert a descent into the geopolitical jungle and prevent the emergence of a new security environment shaped by the Kremlin where the rule of law is replaced by brute force. It is therefore in US interests to maintain Ukraine’s military strength as a bulwark against Russia while Europe rearms.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Putin has repeatedly signalled that he views the complete subjugation of Ukraine as only the first step toward reasserting Russian hegemony over the wider region. He has placed his entire country on a war footing, openly claims to be returning “historically Russian lands,” and declares his intention to establish a new multipolar world order. If Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, his position will become far stronger, while Europe will be more vulnerable than ever. There will then be little to prevent him from achieving his wider objectives.

Trump’s obvious haste to exit Ukraine is now encouraging the Russian dictator to pursue his most maximalist war aims. These include the outright annexation of five Ukrainian regions representating around twenty percent of the entire country, and the international isolation of the remaining Ukrainian state, which would be left neutral, disarmed, and defenseless. In such circumstances, it would only be a matter of time before Putin completed his conquest.

The destruction of Ukraine would set a disastrous precedent that would undo many decades of progress in international relations and mark a return to the diplomatic standards of the nineteenth century, complete with empires, invasions, and annexations. Putin himself would be emboldened to acquire more “historically Russian lands,” while his fellow autocrats in Beijing, Tehran, and beyond would draw the obvious conclusions and follow suit. Failure to confront one aggressive dictatorship would give rise to many more.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event
Mon, March 31, 2025 • 10:00 am ET

What’s next for the Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia?

Conflict
Europe & Eurasia
Human Rights
Resilience & Society

Some in Washington believe that by appeasing Putin in Ukraine, they can convince Russia to ally with the United States against China. This is dangerously naive and fails to appreciate the strength of the current strategic partnership between Moscow and Beijing. China has played an important supporting role in the invasion of Ukraine and sees the current war as an opportunity to undermine the West. As long as Russia can deliver geopolitical success, cooperation between the two countries will continue to deepen.

In contrast, Russian defeat in Ukraine would set off alarm bells in Moscow and Beijing, causing both countries to reassess the nature of their partnership. Many Russian leaders in particular would become increasingly concerned over their growing dependence on China. With this in mind, it would probably make more sense for US officials to maintain or even increase their support for Ukraine if they are serious about creating the long-term conditions for closer cooperation with Russia in the coming confrontation with China.

Perhaps the gravest and most far-reaching geopolitical consequence of a Putin-friendly peace in Ukraine would be the spread of nuclear weapons. In 1994, Ukraine gave up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK. These assurances have since proved worthless. To make matters worse, Russia has repeatedly used nuclear blackmail during the past three years to intimidate Ukraine’s Western allies and enable the invasion.

The lessons from Ukraine’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and Russia’s subsequent nuclear bullying are painfully clear: Any country that wishes to avoid a similar fate must acquire nuclear weapons of their own. This grim reality is likely to spark a new nuclear arms race, with governments from Berlin and Warsaw to Seoul and Tokyo already reportedly exploring their options. If the US backs a pro-Russian peace deal in Ukraine, unprecedented nuclear proliferation will become virtually inevitable.

It is still far too early to pass judgment on Donald Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine, but the potentially disastrous consequences of a bad deal are already clear. Any peace on Putin’s terms would discredit the entire Western world and signal the dawn of a dangerous new era in global affairs marked by mounting instability, international aggression, and the looming threat of nuclear war.

This calamitous outcome can be avoided by backing Ukraine militarily and providing the country with the kind of NATO-style security guarantees that can prevent further Russian aggression and secure peace in Europe. Anything less will merely serve as a pause before the next stage in Russia’s war against the West and the unraveling of the current world order.

Oleksandr Merezhko is a member of the Ukrainian Parliament for the Servant of the People Party and Chair of the Ukrainian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

Further reading

UkraineAlert
Mar 25, 2025

Ukraine’s growing military strength is an underrated factor in peace talks

By
Serhii Kuzan

Any discussion on the future course of the war against Russia and the terms of any peace deal must take into account the fact that Ukraine is a now major military power in its own right, writes Serhii Kuzan.

Conflict
Defense Industry

UkraineAlert
Mar 26, 2025

If Trump wants peace in Ukraine, he must increase the pressure on Putin

By
Doug Klain

Weeks after Ukraine backed a US proposal for an unconditional ceasefire, Russia continues to stall and push for further concessions. If Trump wants to secure peace, he must increase the pressure on Putin, writes Doug Klain.

Conflict
Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert
Mar 20, 2025

Putin is ruthlessly erasing Ukrainian identity in Russian-occupied Ukraine

By
Peter Dickinson

Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin is pursuing policies in Russian-occupied Ukraine that almost certainly meet the definition of ethnic cleansing and may qualify as genocide, writes Peter Dickinson.

Civil Society
Conflict

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Peace on Putin’s terms would lead to a new era of international insecurity appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Effective foreign policy requires informed decision-making based on intelligence, strategic analysis, and long-term national interests. President Donald Trump often favored informal networks of advisors, including oligarchs and business associates, rather than relying on intelligence agencies like the CIA. This approach risks compromising national security, particularly in negotiations with adversarial nations such as Russia. To ensure more effective foreign policy, Trump must prioritize consultation with the CIA over relying on business elites with personal agendas.

The Role of Intelligence in Foreign Policy The CIA plays a critical role in shaping U.S. foreign policy by providing accurate intelligence, assessing geopolitical risks, and advising on negotiations. Intelligence agencies are equipped to offer insights into foreign governments’ strategies, internal politics, and potential threats. Their expertise is crucial when dealing with complex adversaries like Russia, where diplomatic engagement requires a deep understanding of power structures, security interests, and economic dependencies.

More on this story: Warning: DOGE breach of US Treasury data may harm intelligence assets

Trump’s Approach to Russian Negotiations Trump frequently engaged with Russian officials and business figures without fully leveraging the expertise of intelligence agencies. Reports indicate that he often sidelined traditional diplomatic and security channels in favor of private meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, sometimes without American officials present. This created concerns about transparency and strategic alignment with U.S. interests.

Moreover, Trump’s reliance on individuals with business ties to Russia, including oligarchs, raised alarms about conflicts of interest and the potential for foreign influence. These personal networks often prioritize financial interests over national security considerations, making them unreliable sources for shaping policy toward a rival nation.

Case Study: Helsinki Summit (2018) One of the most controversial moments of Trump’s foreign policy was the Helsinki Summit, where he appeared to side with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies regarding Russian election interference. This moment exemplified the dangers of disregarding the CIA’s insights. Instead of challenging Putin with informed intelligence, Trump’s approach emboldened Russia and weakened America’s position in global diplomacy.

Why CIA Consultation Ensures Stronger Diplomacy Had Trump prioritized intelligence briefings and CIA recommendations, his negotiations with Russia could have been more strategic and aligned with U.S. interests. The CIA could have provided critical insights into Russia’s negotiating tactics, areas of weakness, and broader geopolitical ambitions. Consulting intelligence professionals ensures that decisions are based on national security priorities rather than personal business dealings.For the U.S. to maintain its strategic advantage in foreign affairs, leaders must consult intelligence agencies rather than private business interests. Trump’s tendency to bypass the CIA in favor of oligarchic influence weakened America’s negotiating position with Russia. Future administrations must correct this approach by ensuring that intelligence, not personal financial interests, drives foreign policy decision-making. A president who values national security over private wealth will make stronger, more informed decisions in America’s best interests.

More on this story: Will Trump’s Plan to Reform the CIA succeed?

Putin’s Statements Raise Doubts About His Independence in Decision-Making

Statements made by Vladimir Putin during a meeting with Navy servicemen cast doubt on the feasibility of negotiations with him due to legitimate concerns about his independence. Putin proposed discussing the introduction of temporary governance in Ukraine under the auspices of the UN and several countries to facilitate elections.

We have previously emphasized that the White House misjudges and misunderstands the motivations and perception of reality held by the Russian leadership. We believe that at present, Putin is under significant influence from his inner circle, particularly the so-called “hawks” who shape his worldview and assessment of reality.

More on this story: Reasons and indicators for political shifts in Russia

We uncovered an archival video from a Russian television broadcast in the early 2000s in which Putin argues against the annexation of Crimea, warning that it would trigger border disputes across the post-Soviet space, where Russia has 400 contested territories. At the time, he dismissed Russia’s imperial ambitions. His reasoning then appeared logical and convincing.

Given this, we question whether age-related changes alone could have led to such a drastic shift in his stance. Along with notable physiological changes, this radical transformation in judgment and ideology may indicate that Putin has come under substantial external influence. Following the decline in his approval ratings, it is plausible that he has become dependent on the “hawks” faction, which embraces conspiracy theories and narratives of geopolitical plots.

More on this story: Conspiracy and existentialistic theories: the West is too far from true reasons of Russia’shostility

At present, we do not attribute Putin’s state of mind to the effects of medication, which was apparent during 2021-2022 due to severe health conditions. Instead, an age-related crisis, frustration, and increasing dependence on his inner circle may explain his current behavior. We also do not rule out that Putin’s recent statements may be a reaction to the Ukrainian President’s remark hinting at life expectancy.

More on this story: Situation in Russia

More on this story: Putin’s mental state requires search for alternative contacts among Russian leaders

A key development to note is the reappearance of radical figures such as Vyacheslav Surkov in Russian media. Surkov played a leading role in the annexation of Crimea and the military operation in Donbas in 2014. His return suggests that hardliners are regaining influence over decision-making in Russia and within the Kremlin.

Analyzing Putin’s recent statements raises further doubts about whether he is expressing his own thoughts. Lately, he has displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of Ukraine’s governance structure. For example, his claim that a change in government through presidential elections would legitimize the negotiation process reflects an assumption based on Russia’s political system, where the president appoints the government. This, however, ignores Ukraine’s reality, where the government is appointed by the parliament.

More on this story: Kremlin waging campaign to delegitimize Ukraine

The Kremlin fails to account for the fact that decisions perceived as illegitimate under Ukrainian law could be challenged and overturned.

Under these circumstances, we doubt that the Trump administration would be able to achieve meaningful progress in peace negotiations with Russia, where the key decision-maker appears to be under significant influence and, evidently, lacks a clear and rational assessment of the situation.

More on this story: How dynamically the influence of Putin’s close circle changes

Niger’s junta leader, General Abdourahamane Tchiani, has been sworn in for an additional five-year transition period. Per his previous statements, this transition was expected to conclude this year, leading to a return to civilian rule. However, this latest extension follows a familiar pattern seen in other military-led governments in the region—where “transitions” become indefinite and democratic processes are gradually sidelined.

The ultimate goal of military governments in West Africa appears to be the retention of power under the guise of a gradual return to democracy. Historically, coup leaders have justified their takeovers with promises of restoring order, fighting corruption, or addressing security threats. Yet, once in power, they often tighten their grip, limiting political opposition and postponing elections indefinitely. The pattern is clear: transition periods are extended, opposition voices are suppressed, and eventually, leaders seek legitimacy by swapping their military fatigues for civilian suits.

Many citizens and regional actors strongly oppose this model of governance. The erosion of democratic principles, suppression of political activities, and weakening of institutions raise serious concerns about long-term stability. But the juntas are not acting in isolation—they are emboldened by both regional dynamics and external backers.

The Failure of Regional Pressure and the Rise of a Military Bloc

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) initially responded to the Nigerien coup with strong rhetoric and threats of military intervention. However, the failure to act decisively in 2024 only reinforced the perception that regional organizations lack the leverage to enforce democratic norms. Instead of backing down, military governments in West Africa—particularly in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso—have grown closer, forming an informal alliance that rejects external pressure.

This growing military bloc has significant consequences:

1. Diminished Regional Influence of ECOWAS: The inability to enforce its own democratic protocols weakens ECOWAS as an institution. Its credibility is eroding, especially when military-led states openly defy its authority.
2. Stronger Diplomatic and Security Ties with Russia: Since 2021, Russia has expanded its presence in Africa, providing military and economic assistance to juntas. Beyond mercenaries, Moscow offers diplomatic cover, helping these governments resist Western-led sanctions and isolation.
3. Border Security and the Extremist Threat: With extremist groups in the Sahel growing in strength, coastal West African nations like Ghana and Senegal now face a dilemma—whether to engage with military-led governments for security cooperation or risk further destabilization.

The Economic and Human Cost of Prolonged Military Rule

While military governments often present themselves as stabilizing forces, their prolonged rule tends to worsen economic conditions. Investor confidence declines, sanctions lead to economic strain, and mismanagement fuels public discontent.

Moreover, political repression under military regimes can escalate tensions. While juntas claim they are securing their nations, they often deepen divisions by cracking down on dissent. The more they restrict opposition and delay democratic transitions, the higher the likelihood of unrest—either through mass protests, insurgencies, or counter-coups.

The Need for a New Regional Strategy

Despite the complexities of the situation, one thing is clear: both the Sahel states and coastal West African countries need one another. A complete breakdown in communication between the two sides will only lead to more insecurity and economic hardship.

Diplomatic efforts from Ghana and Senegal are commendable but face significant roadblocks. For meaningful progress, regional actors must adopt a more nuanced strategy—one that balances engagement with pressure. Instead of issuing unenforceable ultimatums, ECOWAS and its allies should explore economic incentives for democratic reforms while strengthening regional security cooperation.

West Africa is at a crossroads. If military governments continue to solidify their power and resist democratic transitions, the region risks prolonged instability. However, if diplomatic efforts can successfully bridge the divide between juntas and democratic states, there may still be a path toward stability and cooperation.

For now, Niger’s extended transition period is yet another sign that the military-led governments of West Africa have no intention of stepping aside anytime soon. And unless regional and international actors adjust their approach, the trend of entrenched military rule may become the new normal.Niger’s junta leader sworn in for an extra five-year transition period. Per his words back then, the supposed transition period should be ending this year. Nonetheless, here we go with another five-year transition period declared with the swearing-in of General Abdourahamane Tchiani. 

The ultimate goal of the junta-led governments in the region is to stay on until such time that their leaders get to remove their military fatigues and run for elections. Many have disagreed. Unfortunately for “the right to vote and to be voted for”, every action by the juntas points to what I keep saying. 

After threats by regional actors to use force to remove the Nigerien junta resulted in a debacle in 2024, military governments in West Africa and beyond have become emboldened and most importantly, gotten closer. 

 Russia has consistently shown that it is ready to grant them diplomatic and security support since 2021. Apart from the use of mercenaries, Moscow has given other material support to the military government. This has helped strengthen a triumvirate they have created across one of the largest landlocked spaces in Africa.

 The expansive space has meant that coastal states of the Economic Community of West African states will need to depend on the military governments to secure their borders against the southward movement of violent extremist organizations currently destabilizing the Sahel. 

Consequently, new leaders in Senegal and Ghana have embarked on shuttle diplomacy at different times to help bridge the gulf between the two sides. However, these efforts have proven difficult as staying on to power against established regional protocols, is the goal of the juntas. 

 The military governments in Mali and Burkina Faso have also made similar moves to extend their time in office. This is happening concurrently with widespread limitations on political activities. 

Despite the complexity of the situation, what is not in dispute is the fact that both Sahel states and coastal states need one another for security and economic purposes. The two sides need to continue discussions that may prevent escalations that could be harmful to ordinary people.

More on this story: Niger coup: Russia likely behind 

More on this story: Self-promotion in Mali and rapprochement in Niger: signs of domestic differences in junta-led states