The United States and NATO have zero tolerance for the use of nuclear weapons and would exact a punishing response against Russian leadership and/or military facilities ensuring there would be no second strike, to put it lightly. At least, this is what the U.S. government should make Waterford-crystal-clear.

Jamala’s victory at Eurovision, a popular singing competition most Americans have never heard of, offers lessons in soft power.

Instead of viewing the U.S. military as the world’s policeman or as protecting free riders around the globe, we should understand why it is in America’s interests to maintain forces in Europe and ensure that NATO remains strong.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has appeared profoundly uncomfortable with the qualities most often associated with Churchill: martial resolve, moral clarity, and supreme confidence in the transcendent ideals of Western Civilization.

The Episcopal Church has taken a strong stand in support of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), an international norm developed to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Gaddy and O’Hanlon from Brookings argue that a Reaganov Russia or Besieged Russia are the most likely scenarios after Putin leaves power, but telling the difference between the two would be difficult for foreign observers.

Many have rightly said Europe should have a more effective military force. However, Trump wrongly implies that bases in Germany do not serve any national interests, and he may even be wrong to imply that America has troops in Germany primarily to defend Europe.

The rise of right-wing extremism is one of the indicators that despite many successes on their road to democracy, Slovakia may still be in the tunnel Havel referred to over 20 years ago.

When the government fails to provide peace, order, and justice, justifiably angry and fearful citizens will seek to procure those things for themselves