Many American officials have concluded that issues in Central and Eastern Europe have been fixed once and for all and that they can “check the box” and move on to other more pressing strategic issues. Relations have been so close that many on both sides assume that the region’s transatlantic orientation, as well as its stability and prosperity, would last forever. That view is premature.

The Obama administration is making some adjustments to its foreign policy approach, but not enough to deal with the challenges we face.

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.

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.

Can anyone imagine Truman or Eisenhower, Johnson or Reagan responding in a similar manner if Stalin, Khrushchev, or Brezhnev complimented them? Did they praise Moscow for blockading Berlin, for crushing Hungary, for snuffing out the Prague Spring, for smothering Poland, for being strong, for killing terrorists, for keeping restive peoples in line?

Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church clearly have a close relationship, but their foreign policy in Syria is flawed.

With American planes bombing Islamic State targets and Russian planes bombing the non-Islamic State targets, we are now supporting Putin’s aggression in Syria by eliminating all Sunni Arab opponents of the Assad regime.

Recently Donald Trump ignited controversy by responding to praise from Vladmir Putin with his own praise for the strength of…