Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to Jamestown Perspectives: Georgian Dream Shifting From Western Partner to Provocateur
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Dec. 14, 2025, in its Jamestown Perspectives:* * *
Georgian Dream Shifting from Western Partner to Provocateur
By Tinatin Khidasheli
Executive Summary:
* Georgian Dream has shifted from being ostensibly pro-Western partnership to aggressive anti-Western rhetoric, weaponizing terms like "Deep State" and "Global War Party" to discredit Western institutions, diplomats, and domestic political opposition.
* The ruling party increasingly attacks European and U.S. officials--including ambassadors--using conspiratorial ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Dec. 14, 2025, in its Jamestown Perspectives: * * * Georgian Dream Shifting from Western Partner to Provocateur By Tinatin Khidasheli Executive Summary: * Georgian Dream has shifted from being ostensibly pro-Western partnership to aggressive anti-Western rhetoric, weaponizing terms like "Deep State" and "Global War Party" to discredit Western institutions, diplomats, and domestic political opposition. * The ruling party increasingly attacks European and U.S. officials--including ambassadors--using conspiratorialnarratives, Nazi analogies, and accusations of foreign-orchestrated revolution, severely damaging Georgia's diplomatic relations with the West.
* Georgian Dream reframes EU and NATO integration as a threat that could drag Georgia into war, portraying itself as the sole defender of peace while leveraging fear of renewed conflict with Russia.
* This rhetoric serves Georgian Dream's strategic aims: consolidating domestic control, hedging geopolitically toward Russia and the People's Republic of China, and undermining Western criticism of Georgia's autocratic turn.
Introduction
In September 2025, I had the privilege of testifying before the U.S. Congress at a hearing titled "From Partner to Problem: Georgia's Anti-American Turn" (U.S. Congress, September 10). The discussion focused on how a once-reliable U.S. partner in the South Caucasus has become a case study in democratic backsliding and autocratization (see Strategic Snapshot, September 10). This article continues that story from a different angle, focusing on Tbilisi's changing rhetoric toward the West over the past two years. Georgia's ruling party, Georgian Dream, has moved beyond policy differences and entered the realm of parody, mocking European and U.S. leadership while mimicking their language. From accusing Western leadership of membership in a "Global War Party," "Deep State" conspiracies, and open letters to U.S. President Donald Trump, Georgian Dream has transformed Georgia's posture toward the West from partnership to provocation.
Georgian Dream Weaponizes Warped Imported Rhetoric
There was a time when "anti-Americanism" in Georgia was packaged in Soviet-era cliches about Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) conspiracies and capitalist decadence. Today, it comes with hashtags about the "Deep State," "Global War Party," "rebranding," and "foreign agents" (Civil Georgia, January 8). This terminology has become a fixture of Georgian Dream's political lexicon. For Georgian Dream, the villains are no longer Moscow or local oligarchs but Washington, Brussels, and their representatives in Georgia.
Georgian Dream, founded and financed by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, has spent the last two years borrowing and weaponizing vocabulary from Western domestic politics to attack U.S. institutions (European Digital Media Observatory, October 14, 2024; OC Media, January 9). The result is surreal: U.S. leadership has become a rhetorical target for Georgian Dream despite years of economic and diplomatic partnership with Washington.
Since early 2025, Georgian Dream Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze and Speaker of Parliament Shalva Papuashvili have consistently recited "Deep State" narratives (Civil Georgia, March 14). Georgian Dream recasts statements from the United States and European Union as the rhetoric of a shadowy global network seeking regime change in Georgia. The blame placed on the "Deep State" is so frequent it borders on parody. Kobakhidze's own words illustrate how far this rhetoric has gone: "The U.S. State Department better prove that it acts not under the influence of the 'Deep State' but in accordance with the objective interests of the American people" (Interpressnews, October 8). According to Kobakhidze, President Trump also needs to pass his test:
If the Deep State loses this battle, which we refer to as the conflict between the Deep State and Trump, relations will be normalized. However, if the Deep State prevails, difficulties will persist ... When the attitude toward Georgia remains unchanged, it signifies that the Deep State is still strong (1tv.ge, September 25).
Kobakhidze asserts that the "Deep State" has a simple model: "either you are an agent or an enemy," insisting that the United States wants the Georgian government to become agents serving its interests (Imedinews, October 7). He goes on to say, "[Georgians] cannot become agents, but do not look at us as enemies; look at us as partners." This language no longer shocks Georgians; it saturates prime-time television. Georgian Dream and its supporters designate everyone who advocates for Georgia's Western orientation, fights for Euro Atlantic integration, or cooperates with the West as a spy, recruited for a mission to destroy the "traditional way of life" in Georgia. Georgian Dream uses this rhetoric to attempt to discredit the entire Georgian political opposition, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks, and independent media. According to Georgian Dream, any current or former Georgian official not aligned with the present-day ruling party--including two presidents, two prime ministers, foreign and defense ministers, and Speakers of Parliament--is a member of the so-called "Deep State."
The head of the State Security Service, Mamuka Mdinaradze, followed suit, claiming that the "Deep State" had undergone "rebranding and modernization" and warning of "a global, dangerous force" (Imedinews, March 10). Mdinaradze quickly found a tangible villain in the United States and its diplomatic missions for his narrative. In February, he accused the United States of financing unrest: "It is obvious that American taxpayers' money was used to fund a revolution in Georgia" (Formula News, October 2). In October, he repeated the claim, this time blaming the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok for funding "radicals acting against the [Georgian] government and pursuing revolutionary goals" (Formula News, October 2).
For a small democracy still nominally seeking North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and EU membership, these are extraordinary accusations. These narratives form part of a deliberate propaganda architecture designed to shift responsibility for corruption, repression, and democratic decline onto bureaucrats in Washington and Brussels. The effect is devastatingly simple: ordinary Georgians are taught to distrust Western institutions and their own pro-Western compatriots.
Although Georgian Dream imported the term "deep state" wholesale from Western domestic politics, they have twisted its meaning beyond recognition. When Georgian Dream speaks of the "Deep State," they refer to Washington and Brussels, portraying the United States' administration, the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Congress, Europe's elected leaders, the European Parliament, and the diplomatic corps as a single hostile machine.
Georgian Dream Makes Europe Its New Enemy
There is almost nothing left that Georgians have not heard from Georgian Dream--accusations, conspiracies, or insults toward the country's Western partners. Even by those standards, Kobakhidze managed to escalate on October 8 by declaring, "Today, Europe is dominated by the same Goebbels-style propaganda that reigned eighty years ago. Europe is not a panacea. Europe also had Mr. Goebbels, who was distinguished by exactly this kind of propaganda" (Civil Georgia, October 8).
In a political environment saturated with anti-Western rhetoric, invoking Nazi Germany's propaganda minister as a metaphor for the European Union marked a new low. The statement blurred the line between populism and outright historical revisionism.
In the days surrounding Kobakhidze's October comments, Georgian representatives launched a wave of abusive attacks against the German ambassador to Tbilisi, accusing him of "arrogance," "double standards," and "meddling in Georgia's internal affairs." The language was so aggressive that Berlin took the unprecedented step of recalling its ambassador (Politico Europe, October 19). For European diplomats, this episode was not simply offensive; it was alarming proof that Georgian Dream no longer even pretends to operate within the norms of Western discourse.
Georgian Dream Verbally Attacking Diplomats
German diplomats are not the only targets of this orchestrated hostility. The pattern began much earlier with the campaign against the U.S. Ambassador to Georgia. In 2022, U.S. Ambassador Kelly C. Degnan faced a barrage of personal attacks from Georgian Dream officials, including the Mayor of Tbilisi (Civil Georgia, June 13, 2022; OC Media, July 21, 2022; Transparency International, August 4, 2022). Kobakhidze accused Ambassador Degnan of "demanding that Georgia open a second front against Russia" and of interference in Georgia's internal affairs (Front News Georgia, March 12). These accusations marked the start of a systematic effort to discredit Western diplomats and recast Georgia's traditional partners as conspirators in a global plot against Georgian Dream. Kobakhidze went so far as to accuse EU Commissioner Oliver Varhelyi of threatening him with physical violence in a phone conversation, alleging that Varhelyi hinted he could face the same fate as Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, who was shot four times in a May assassination attempt (JAM News, Politico Europe, May 23).
U.S. ambassadors have a special place in Georgian Dream's verbal attacks. If the "Deep State" is the puppet master in Georgian Dream's mythology, U.S. ambassadors are its visible villains. Since early 2022, Georgian officials have personalized their attacks, first against Ambassador Degnan and later against Ambassador Robin Dunnigan, portraying them as conspirators and meddlers. On October 7, Kobakhidze said, "The Americans, their bureaucracy, viewed us as an enemy. The ambassador on the ground did this" (Imedinews, October 7). He also stated:
"There was the perception that if the U.S. ambassador or a State Department representative said something--even if it was a lie--you had to go along. One of our main achievements today is that people no longer think this way" (Imedinews, October 6).
In a country where pro-U.S. sentiment was once widespread, this is a marked shift. Georgian Dream thinks it has won a victory by teaching citizens to ignore Washington and Brussels, and celebrates this change as "sovereignty." Washington, meanwhile, has responded with restraint--each mild U.S. statement is followed by another Georgian broadside. The pattern is consistent: Washington condemns, Georgian Dream ridicules, and pro-government media applauds.
Georgian Dream Creates "Global War Party" as its Scapegoat
The summer of 2025 brought one of the strangest episodes yet: Georgian Dream sent an open letter to Trump's campaign team congratulating them for "eradicating the Deep State." The letter, delivered through official diplomatic channels, was so fawning that Ambassador Dunnigan described it as "insulting, unserious, and extremely poorly received in Washington" (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, July 7). Domestically, however, the letter achieved its purpose, signaling Georgian Dream's supposed optimism that Tbilisi's relationship with Washington might soon improve.
In the following months, the party's conspiratorial cosmology expanded further. The "Deep State" became just one head of a larger beast--the "Global War Party." According to Georgian Dream, this cabal includes "the American military-industrial complex, George Soros, neoconservatives, and European bureaucrats," all allegedly conspiring to "open a second front in Georgia" with the U.S. ambassador to Georgia leading the process (Imedinews, October 6). In October, Kobakhidze claimed that "as long as the war continues [in Ukraine], the Deep State has a vested interest in opening a second front in Georgia" (Imedinews, October 6).
This narrative painting the United States as a warmonger and Georgian Dream as the guardian of peace has become the emotional centerpiece of the ruling party's rhetoric. It allows the government to portray every Western criticism as an existential threat to peace. The question "Do you want war?" now defines its political battlefield.
Georgian Dream has turned authoritarian control into patriotic virtue by associating the West with chaos and itself with stability. The United States, reduced to a caricature of the "Deep State," becomes the perfect enemy: powerful, distant, and, conveniently, according to Georgian Dream's rhetoric, dumb.
Georgian Dream Associates Western Integration with War
The optics of Georgian Dream's worldview are strange. A NATO aspirant lectures the United States about democratic legitimacy while borrowing parts of its lexicon. The result is a hall of mirrors--Western phrases echo back from Tbilisi, stripped of irony and used to attack U.S. diplomacy itself.
Georgian Dream tells voters: The West wants war; we protect peace. In a society traumatized by Russia's 2008 invasion and ongoing occupation of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali, this message resonates deeply. Presenting itself as the only bulwark against another conflict, Georgian Dream has reframed Western integration as a threat, not a promise. By equating Western integration with instability, Georgian Dream reframes repression as national preservation.
It might be funny if the geopolitical risks were not so great. When partner nations learn to insult the United States without consequence, Washington's deterrence strategy begins to erode. Georgia's ruling party has discovered what Moscow and Beijing learned long ago: ridicule is the cheapest form of provocation.
Anti-Western Rhetoric Serving Strategic Purpose
Georgian Dream's anti-Western rhetoric is not an emotional outburst; it is a strategy. It serves three key purposes:
Domestic Consolidation--Blaming an ill-defined Western "Deep State" for Georgia's isolation deflects responsibility for Georgia's corruption and economic stagnation while portraying Georgian Dream as the sole defender of sovereignty.
Geopolitical Hedging--By antagonizing the West while cooperating economically with the People's Republic of China and tolerating Russia, Georgian Dream signals to all sides that it is too unpredictable to punish.
Narrative Capture--Georgian Dream seeks to inoculate itself against Western criticism by mimicking phrases with origins in the United States. When Georgian officials use "Deep State" and "Global War Party" rhetoric, they attempt to undermine the West's moral authority and blame it for Russia's war against Ukraine.
A decade ago, Georgia was hailed as the "beacon of democracy" in the post-Soviet space. Today, it is cited in U.S. Senate hearings as an "anti-American government" (U.S. Congress, September 10). Every rebuke from Washington is celebrated in Tbilisi as proof of its independence. Georgian Dream has turned resentment into political capital and parody into policy. Georgia is not unique. Across the world, illiberal leaders have learned to use language with origins in the West to delegitimize criticism while maintaining relations with Western businesses and defense partners.
The absurdity reaches new heights in Georgia because the country's survival depends on Western security guarantees. Insulting partners while Russian troops occupy Georgian territory is not just reckless--it is performative dependency. Georgian Dream knows Russia poses a legitimate threat, while the United States and Europe are unlikely to respond to their offensive rhetoric with anything beyond diplomatic statements. This asymmetry makes the West a convenient scapegoat for Georgia's woes.
* * *
Tinatin Khidasheli heads a Georgian think tank, Civic IDEA, advocating for sound defense and security policy for Georgia.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/georgian-dream-shifting-from-western-partner-to-provocateur/
[Category: ThinkTank]
IDS supports the launch of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists
BRIGHTON, England, Dec. 16 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Institute of Development Studies, an organization that conducts research, learning and teaching that aims to transform the knowledge, action and leadership needed for equitable and sustainable development globally, posted the following news:* * *
IDS supports the launch of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists
The United Nations International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP 2026) was launched at an event at the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation in Rome on 2 December. Next year will be a full year of celebrations ... Show Full Article BRIGHTON, England, Dec. 16 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Institute of Development Studies, an organization that conducts research, learning and teaching that aims to transform the knowledge, action and leadership needed for equitable and sustainable development globally, posted the following news: * * * IDS supports the launch of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists The United Nations International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP 2026) was launched at an event at the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation in Rome on 2 December. Next year will be a full year of celebrationsof the importance of rangelands and pastoralism across the world, with advocacy around a range of themes.
IDS hosted PASTRES (pastoralism, uncertainty, resilience: global lessons from the margins) programme, which closed at the end of 2023, was very much involved in the build-up to IYRP 2026. All those who were involved in PASTRES are deeply committed to the international year's goals, which are to:
* Increase public awareness of the societal value derived from rangelands and pastoralists.
* Promote pastoralist knowledge, innovation and coalition building to meet contemporary needs.
* Advocate for evidence-based policy and legislation that supports sustainable rangeland stewardship and pastoralist livelihoods.
* Foster ethical investment to address challenges confronting rangelands and pastoralists in the 21st century.
A new narrative for pastoralism and development
PASTRES research over five years in China, Ethiopia, India, Italy, Kenya and Tunisia (and beyond through our network of affiliate researchers and postdocs) generated a new narrative on pastoralism, with issues of uncertainty central to understanding pastoral systems.
The ten-part blog series showcases the collective work, linking to many of the blogs, papers and other materials on the PASTRES legacy website. Check out the series to get a flavour of our findings, alongside our edited book, Pastoralism, Uncertainty and Development, which has chapters from all our core sites.
The new narrative must be at the centre of advocacy efforts during IYRP 2026, and we will be sharing more of our work around IYRP themes next year.
Global lessons from the margins
When PASTRES started, we set ourselves an ambitious task - to generate 'global lessons from the margins' through understanding how pastoralists navigate uncertainty in diverse settings around the world.
Beyond focusing on pastoral areas, we believe that IYRP 2026 needs to highlight how pastoralists can offer wider insights for humanity, emphasising how we all must live with and from uncertainty, learning lessons from pastoralists.
These 'global lessons' have been explored in seven journal articles - on pastoralists' practices, economics, migration, pandemics, knowledge, insurance and knowledge networks, as well as in the book Navigating Uncertainty: Radical Rethinking for a Turbulent World, published open access in 2024.
***
Original text here: https://www.ids.ac.uk/news/ids-supports-the-launch-of-the-international-year-of-rangelands-and-pastoralists/
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Dispatch: Dangerous Detente With China
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 14, 2025, to the Dispatch:* * *
A Dangerous Detente with China
By Michael Sobolik
"No administration in history has achieved so dramatic a turnaround in so short a time."
With those words on the opening page of the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) released earlier this month, President Donald Trump heralded his administration's success in bringing America and the world "back from the brink of catastrophe and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 14, 2025, to the Dispatch: * * * A Dangerous Detente with China By Michael Sobolik "No administration in history has achieved so dramatic a turnaround in so short a time." With those words on the opening page of the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) released earlier this month, President Donald Trump heralded his administration's success in bringing America and the world "back from the brink of catastrophe anddisaster." The world had indeed grown more dangerous in recent years. President Joe Biden withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan haphazardly and carelessly. After failing to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from undertaking a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Biden then turned to Chinese leader Xi Jinping and implored him to prevail upon Moscow to end the war. Trump has good reason to decry his predecessor's "weakness ... and deadly failures."
Today, according to Trump, "America is strong and respected again. ... In everything we do, we are putting America First."
Words hold great power. With them, leaders can give voice to fear while instilling courage. They can acknowledge anger and demand justice while calling a nation to its better angels. Words can inspire people, channel thinking, and forge consensus. They cannot, however, change reality by their own sheer force. Platitudes are a feeble substitute for policy, and aphorisms are hollow without action. Believing otherwise is a fatal conceit of politicians, and also happens to be the weakness of the NSS--particularly with respect to U.S. competition with China.
But let us first acknowledge Trump's accomplishments regarding China, of which there are several. His second administration is forging ahead with establishing alternative supply chains for critical minerals. The Pentagon is investing in a reinvigorated defense industrial base. The president himself is challenging President Xi Jinping to uphold his commercial commitments and, more fundamentally, transition China's economy away from overreliance on production and toward sustainable consumption. This rebalancing would serve the whole world well and eliminate many of the problems plaguing critical industries like renewable energy, telecommunications, and automobiles.
Most consequentially, Trump took a wrecking ball in his first administration to the naive belief that Washington could liberalize Beijing with commercialization. The White House's diagnosis in this year's NSS is sound:
President Trump single-handedly reversed more than three decades of mistaken American assumptions about China: namely, that by opening our markets to China, encouraging American businesses to invest in China, and outsourcing our manufacturing to China, we would facilitate China's entry into the so-called "rules-based international order." This did not happen.
True enough. After the end of the Cold War, American policymakers began to believe deeply misguided things about the world in which they lived. Consider President Bill Clinton's stunning declaration in the 1994 NSS that "our goals of enhancing our security, bolstering our economic prosperity, and promoting democracy are mutually supportive." Why? Because "nations with growing economies and strong trade ties are more likely to feel secure and to work toward freedom." Americans began to believe they were living in a world without trade-offs, where free trade and free societies inevitably went hand in hand. It was the dictators, not democrats, who faced a zero-sum choice: reform, or perish.
Reality, of course, took a different turn. "China," according to Trump's NSS, "got rich and powerful, and used its wealth and power to its considerable advantage. American elites -- over four successive administrations of both political parties -- were either willing enablers of China's strategy or in denial." Again, true enough.
But what began as sound strategy during the president's first term, grounded in a framework of great power competition, has given way to transactional balance-of-power politics. The president has been clear about his belief that "China and the United States can together solve all of the problems of the world." So, when the NSS heralds the administration's "turnaround in so short a time," it is correct--but in an ironic, darker way. What began as a sober approach to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has returned to willful blindness to China's ideological threat, as I've previously argued in The Dispatch.
The NSS suggests the possibility of "a genuinely mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing" rooted in "reciprocity and fairness." It is from these assumptions that many of the administration's most peculiar China policies flow: doubling the number of Chinese students without corresponding security protocols, allowing CCP-controlled TikTok to operate in violation of U.S. law, and approving the sale of advanced artificial intelligence chips to Chinese companies with links to the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
These policies are no better than the "globalist" China agenda that preceded Trump. They assume zero security downside while maximizing commercial and cultural engagement. It is a contemporary manifestation of the misguided internationalism that led Clinton to establish permanent normal trade relations with China at the turn of the century. One could argue that Trump's outlook is worse. In the early 2000s, America did not have a 25-year track record of CCP diplomatic deceit, predatory economics, and belligerent statecraft. Today, we have no excuse.
More pressingly, this naivete endangers Americans. The NSS insists that America must "preserve and advance our advantage in cutting-edge military and dual-use technology, with emphasis on the domains where U.S. advantages are strongest," to include AI. A week after publishing these words, the administration unilaterally ceded what may turn out to be a significant portion of its notable advantage in AI compute by greenlighting the sale of Nvidia H200 chips to China in exchange for 25 percent of the revenue.
On December 8, hours before the president announced this policy, the Department of Justice arrested two businessmen for allegedly smuggling the advanced chips to Chinese customers. "These chips," the DOJ warned, "are the building blocks of AI superiority and are integral to modern military applications. The country that controls these chips will control AI technology; the country that controls AI technology will control the future." The DOJ's assessment is correct.
Compute capacity is America's chief advantage in the AI race with China. According to a study from the Institute for Progress, the H200 has roughly 32 percent more processing power and 50 percent more memory bandwidth than China's best chips today. Huawei isn't expected to produce a chip that rivals the H200 until the end of 2027. Closing this gap for Beijing supercharges the CCP's militarized agenda for AI: counter strikes, missile defense ambushes, robo-dog warfighting, drone warfare, and psychological operations. Beijing is preparing to fight American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and is leveraging AI toward that end. Selling PLA-linked Chinese customers H200s underwrites this agenda.
"Peace through strength" is not an incantation, but a disposition. It is a commitment by elected leaders to properly order competing interests domestically in order to deter foreign conflicts. U.S. presidents failed to do this for decades with China, from Clinton to Barack Obama, in large part because prosperity and trade poll better on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley than cold wars and export controls. The NSS captures what appears to be the Trump administration's slightly revised Pollyannish belief about China: the idea that Washington can correct its trade terms with Beijing without worrying about the CCP's political warfare against America and its allies.
The president has time to course-correct, and he has all the inspiration he needs from his first administration. If he doesn't, however, policymakers in 2050 will look back to this decade--just as we look back to the fateful decision to normalize trade relations with China 25 years ago--as a fateful turning point when America's leaders talked a big game but yielded to billionaires and lobbyists who are not elected or paid to consider the national interest. They will also look back and know whether "America First" was doctrine or delusion.
Read in The Dispatch (https://thedispatch.com/article/national-security-strategy-trump-nvidia-ai/).
* * *
Michael Sobolik is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/dangerous-detente-china-michael-sobolik
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Arab News: U.S. Actions More Important Than Its New Strategy
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 15, 2025, to Arab News:* * *
US Actions More Important than Its New Strategy
By Luke Coffey
The Trump administration last week released its national security strategy, the first of President Donald Trump's second term in office. While many in Washington were awaiting the publication of this strategy, most were surprised by how suddenly and the way in which it appeared. Without any major public event or keynote speech ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Dec. 15, 2025, to Arab News: * * * US Actions More Important than Its New Strategy By Luke Coffey The Trump administration last week released its national security strategy, the first of President Donald Trump's second term in office. While many in Washington were awaiting the publication of this strategy, most were surprised by how suddenly and the way in which it appeared. Without any major public event or keynote speechby a senior administration official, the White House quietly released the 33-page strategy online with little fanfare.
This is interesting because, in the past, new administrations would launch their national security strategies to establish a clear division between their incumbency and the national security approach of their predecessor. They are seen as a way to drive the news cycle for at least a couple of days and this is why a senior official, often the president himself, would deliver a major speech outlining his vision for American statecraft.
This strategy is different from its predecessors in many ways. It is more focused, concentrating only on four major regions of the world: the Western Hemisphere, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. At the end of the document, there is a small section on Africa that almost seems like an afterthought.
Of the major sections, the European section received the most attention, as it was perceived to be a political attack on Europe and the transatlantic alliance and it did not establish Russia as an adversary or even a competitor, breaking from Trump's national security strategy in his first term.
The Middle East and Asia sections were generally well received. And it was clear that the top priority for the strategy was the Western Hemisphere and protecting the homeland, which is something the Trump administration has prioritized since returning to office.
The strategy itself states that previous versions tried to cover all areas of the world without any sense of focus or priority, admitting that it would only touch on the areas of absolute strategic importance to the US. Even so, the areas not mentioned in the document are almost as important, or almost as telling, as those that were mentioned.
There are four areas that were largely overlooked in the national security strategy that are worth pointing out. Firstly, there was no specific mention of Central Asia or the South Caucasus. This omission was notable for a couple of reasons. Because there is such emphasis on Europe and Asia, the region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia serves as the bridge that connects these two strategic areas.
But most importantly, Trump has devoted a lot of diplomatic energy to the region. He led efforts to broker a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ending a war that was almost 30 years old. He has also presided over a renewed focus on Central Asia by hosting at the White House a meeting of the region's leaders to mark the 10th anniversary of the C5+1 format. This was the first time such a head-of-state meeting had been held at the White House. So, it was surprising that the region, which has grown increasingly important, received no mention in this strategy.
Another glaring omission was the lack of focus on the Arctic, especially in the context of Western Hemisphere security. The strategy prioritized US interests in the Western Hemisphere but focused only on everything from the Caribbean south. In order to ensure that the US mainland remains secure, Washington is going to have to increase its presence and capabilities in its Arctic region.
Considering some of the rhetoric coming from Trump regarding Greenland and the major recent announcement of new icebreakers, the fact there was no reference to the northern half of the Western Hemisphere was another surprising absence.
Another interesting place that received no mention at all was Afghanistan. Considering the US' two decades of investment in that country and Trump's role during his first term in brokering the ill-fated deal with the Taliban, one would have thought the country would have been mentioned. In fact, this is the first national security strategy in almost 30 years, going back to the second Clinton administration, that made no reference whatsoever to Afghanistan.
One final notable absence was the lack of a lengthy section on counterterrorism. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans still see transnational terrorism as a major threat to US security. During the first Trump administration, his national security strategy focused greatly on the terrorist threat. This strategy barely mentions terrorism at all and, when it does, it is usually in the context of narco-terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.
In the context of the US presidency, national security documents tend to serve as a useful public relations tool to communicate administration priorities to the public. Seldom do these national strategy documents truly serve as a detailed roadmap for policy. This is likely because there are so many facets of American national security that have a say in the process.
While the national security strategy originates from the White House, the Pentagon conducts its own reviews, the intelligence community does the same and Congress can make and shape national security policy with its powers of funding the federal government. Most of all, we know from Trump's first administration that these documents rarely mean much in the policymaking process.
What ultimately matters is not what these documents say but what Trump himself chooses to do. For all the interesting reading the newly released strategy provides, it is more important to pay close attention to the man making the decisions than to the paper meant to define America's role in the world.
Read in Arab News (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2626015).
* * *
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/us-actions-more-important-its-new-strategy-luke-coffey
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: United States Needs Its Marine Corps Now More Than Ever
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 15, 2025:* * *
The United States Needs Its Marine Corps Now More Than Ever
By Patrick Panjeti and David Batcheler
Shortly after the United States Marine Corps celebrated its 250th anniversary, a familiar debate has resurfaced; commentaries and opinion pieces are once again circulating suggesting the Department of Defense eliminate the Marine Corps. The arguments for abolition are fiscal and functional: Critics contend that the U.S. Army handles ground combat, the U.S. Navy handles ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 15, 2025: * * * The United States Needs Its Marine Corps Now More Than Ever By Patrick Panjeti and David Batcheler Shortly after the United States Marine Corps celebrated its 250th anniversary, a familiar debate has resurfaced; commentaries and opinion pieces are once again circulating suggesting the Department of Defense eliminate the Marine Corps. The arguments for abolition are fiscal and functional: Critics contend that the U.S. Army handles ground combat, the U.S. Navy handlessea power to include an amphibious capability, and the Marine Corps' more than $50 billion annual cost is an inefficient use of defense spending. Further, they point to the lack of major amphibious assaults in recent history, citing the absence of modern-day Incheon's or D-Day as proof of the service's obsolescence, furthermore insinuating that the Marine Corps' only talent relies on its amphibious roots. Service capabilities do not change at a whim; force structure is postured across the U.S. military to achieve the most decisive victory in every global crisis the nation encounters. With approximately 71 percent of the Earth's surface covered by water and adversaries operating across all domains, investing in an amphibious and expeditionary force remains strategically essential.
This line of reasoning concludes that marines are effectively a "mini-army" with overlapping capabilities that the larger Army could simply absorb. However, the thought of ridding the joint force of the Marine Corps during an era of great power competition and hemispheric littoral focus is a dangerous one. Abolishing the Marine Corps to save roughly 6 percent of the defense budget would sever the Navy's ability to project power onto land and leave the United States without a credible and lethal rapid-response force in the Pacific or anywhere else in the world. The United States should not maintain the Marine Corps for "sentimental" reasons or because the Marine Corps is embedded in the roots of U.S. culture; the Marine Corps exists and serves because the U.S. Navy needs it to achieve victory.
The Sea-to-Shore Continuum: Marine Integration into the CWC Structure
The argument for redundancy ignores the Marine Corps' statutory role as a naval expeditionary force. While the Army is designed to sustain long-term land campaigns, such as occupation and nation-building, the Marine Corps is purpose-built for forcible entry operations and sea control using one of its most advantageous assets, a scalable Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) that uniquely intertwines itself within the command-and-control architecture of the U.S. Navy. This distinction is most visible in how the two services interact within the fleet.
The Marine Corps' strategic advantage lies in its intertwined relationship with the Navy as its primary naval infantry. Specifically, marines deploy on amphibious ships, integrating directly into the Navy's Composite Warfare Commander (CWC) structure (Reference Joint Publication 3-32, Joint Maritime Operations, Chapter II for CWC construct). In this architecture, marine assets are not merely "riders" or cargo; they are sensors and shooters that extend the fleet's lethality through fast-moving, small-unit actions. Conversely, the Army does not possess the culture, training, or equipment to live on and fight from ships for months at a time. Furthermore, the CWC structure allows for operational support to sustain marine units for extended periods of time without rapid replenishment, allowing for prompt and decisive actions in a nonpermissive environment against the nation's adversaries or in support of U.S. allies and partners.
The Marine Corps serves as the hinge between the fleet and the shore. In a potential conflict with the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the South China Sea, the environment will be defined by the doctrinal Air-Sea Battle. At some point, the U.S. Navy's sea power must be projected ashore. The Army requires a secure port or airfield to offload heavy divisions, of which most islands and blue water land masses cannot sustain. It is the marines who project the Navy's sea power ashore to seize a port or airfield for an operational advantage, ensuring the Army can enter the fight uncontested to begin large-scale land campaigns and rebuilding efforts. Without the marines, the joint force lacks a forcible entry capability from the sea; this cannot be replicated.
The MAGTF: Agility in the Littorals
The unique value of the Marine Corps is best exemplified by the MAGTF. Critics often overlook that the U.S. Army does not have the agility to rapidly deploy a scalable platoon, company, battalion, or regimental landing force complete with organic sustainment, including its own logistics and air support, all of which can be sustained for upward of 30 days with its organic and naval backing. The most common MAGTF seen constantly forward-deployed is that of the Marine Expeditionary Unit, always supported by its naval counterpart, the Amphibious Ready Group.
The MAGTF allows a commander to bring a self-contained ecosystem of violence to the battlespace. Unlike the Army, which relies on the Air Force for strategic airlift, close air support, and heavy logistics chains for supply, a MAGTF arrives with its own aviation combat element and combat service support, complete with command-and-control structure and sufficient logistics capability for combat and humanitarian operations. This is critical in the littorals, where the United States Air Force is neither trained nor equipped to establish and maintain air superiority in contested maritime pockets. The MAGTF will always outperform other purpose-built units due to its inherited immediate response capability, or more commonly known as the nation's 911 force.
The integration of marine aviation on platforms like the America-class amphibious assault ships allows the force to rely solely on projecting air power in a contested maritime environment without needing land bases immediately, all the while retaining its nucleus for support aboard amphibious shipping. This organic unity of command--air, ground, and logistics under a single commander--provides a speed of decision-making and execution that a joint ad hoc formation of Army and Air Force units cannot replicate.
Great Power Competition Requires Amphibious Capability
The assertion that major amphibious assaults are a thing of the past and therefore an amphibious branch is unnecessary is utter nonsense. Modern amphibious warfare is not about storming beaches into machine-gun fire; it is about the geometric advantage of the sea. Implying that amphibious and air assaults from the sea do not mature and change with the character of war is of similar thought to that of the technological advancements in air-to-air combat. Suggesting that limited amphibious operations in recent decades are a reason for abolishing a service would contrast with the advancements of fifth- and sixth-generation fighters with their limited air-to-air combat in similar decades, especially when comparing budgetary allocations. Modern conflicts change and amphibious warfare change at pace. The Marine Corps focuses its strategy of manning, training, and equipping its forces for naval warfare to answer the changing character of war.
In First Island Chain scenarios involving the PRC, the ability to move small, lethal units from island to island in austere locations, maintaining a low signature to establish anti-ship missile batteries, is critical. This is a denial strategy that turns the geography of the Pacific against an adversary. The Marine Corps' Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) concept serves as sea denial or sea-control stations that allow for the rapid creation of temporary bases, leading to distributed lethality across a littoral environment while under a contested atmosphere. Current and future theaters of conflict will require the EABO concept to be successful. Abolishing the Marine Corps reflects a continentalist view of warfare--an assumption that wars are fought only on large land masses.
As a maritime power, the United States relies on the oceans for trade and security. To view the Marine Corps as a redundant land army is to misunderstand the geography of the next war. The United States needs a force that is comfortable in the chaos of the littoral zone, capable of bridging the gap between the blue water Navy and the land-centric Army. That force is and remains the U.S. Marine Corps.
* * *
Patrick Panjeti and David Batcheler are military fellows with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
* * *
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the views or policy of the U.S. Defense Department, the Department of the Navy, or the U.S. government. No federal endorsement is implied or intended.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/united-states-needs-its-marine-corps-now-more-ever
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Everything Old Is New Again
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 15, 2025:* * *
Everything Old Is New Again
By William Alan Reinsch
I am in the process of decluttering my office, which basically means taking a bunch of old books and studies home so my wife can nag me to get rid of them. It's very hard for me to throw away a book, and the ones being decluttered are not the kind that can be donated or even surreptitiously placed in one of the tiny libraries that inhabit several front lawns in my neighborhood. There is no room and no demand.
That ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 15, 2025: * * * Everything Old Is New Again By William Alan Reinsch I am in the process of decluttering my office, which basically means taking a bunch of old books and studies home so my wife can nag me to get rid of them. It's very hard for me to throw away a book, and the ones being decluttered are not the kind that can be donated or even surreptitiously placed in one of the tiny libraries that inhabit several front lawns in my neighborhood. There is no room and no demand. Thatdoes not, however, mean they do not matter. So, I looked through them to see if there were any nuggets of wisdom worth pulling out and passing on. It turns out there were, and here are some examples in no particular order:
"International trading patterns are likely to change dramatically as China increases both imports and exports. China will also acquire increasing political influence in world affairs as its economic, technological, and military strengths grow.... If China is to become a major power, it will be through developing its own capabilities throughout the economy."
Technology Transfer to China, Office of Technology Assessment, July 1987
"The United States...has been slow to recognize the changing nature of technological competition. As the nation wakes up to this new reality, it must reassess the roles played by all sectors--industry, academia, labor and government. The American economic system is based on the premise that the primary responsibility for commercialization belongs with the private sector. But success ultimately depends on a team effort."
Picking Up the Pace: The Commercial Challenge to American Innovation, Council on Competitiveness
"[This study] concludes that if the promotional policies under way in a number of foreign countries are not offset, the United States confronts the loss of technological leadership and, indeed, technological autonomy in microelectronics, a development that will have adverse ripple effects throughout our economy and for our national security."
Creating Advantage: Semiconductors and Government Industrial Policy in the 1990s, Semiconductor Industry Association and Dewey Ballantine, 1992
"During the last half century, America defined its priorities in geopolitical terms. Our preeminent goal was to contain the Soviet Union and win the Cold War. We have succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, emerging at the world's only military superpower. But we are no longer the world's only economic superpower. Indeed, in the full flush of geopolitical triumph, we are teetering over the abyss of economic decline.
The signs are everywhere: anemic productivity growth, falling real wages, a woefully inadequate educational system, and declining shares of world markets for many high-technology products. After more than a decade of faltering American economic performance, what was once considered an alarmist view has now become a mainstream opinion: our economic competitiveness--defined as our ability to produce goods and services that meet the test of international markets while our citizens enjoy a standard of living that is both rising and sustainable--is in slow but perceptible decline."
Who's Bashing Whom? Trade Conflict in High-Technology Industries, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Institute for International Economics, November 1992
Of course, this is cherry-picking, and I could do another column or two of quotes that got everything wrong. I could also do another one with more quotes from people who were right. The point is to demonstrate that there were people back then who got it right and saw what was coming. One of my complaints about the Biden administration's trade people was their argument that previous generations did not understand trade and only they had figured things out correctly. That also is clearly Trump's view--that his predecessors, mostly Biden but also others, failed to understand and address the problems of unfair trade that he is now solving. Of course, it is ironic that while both the Trump and Biden administrations say their predecessors got it wrong, their visions of what is right are quite different.
The point of this column, though, is to show that not everybody back then was wrong. There were plenty of smart people thoughtfully attacking difficult problems and showing considerable prescience in anticipating what was coming. Our mistake was not to listen to them. Instead, we violated the basic rule of holes--when you're in one, stop digging.
* * *
William A. Reinsch is senior adviser and Scholl Chair emeritus with the Economics Program and Scholl Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: New Mexicans Should Take Advantage of Education Tax Credits
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Dec. 15, 2025, to the Albuquerque Journal:* * *
New Mexicans Should Take Advantage of Education Tax Credits
By Vincent Torres
New Mexico has a choice to make. The state can empower New Mexico families with scholarships to send their children to schools that meet their needs, or it can allow those dollars to flow to children in other states. The right choice is clear: New Mexico's children should come first.
Thanks to President Donald Trump and Congress, families nationwide now have access to the first-ever ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Dec. 15, 2025, to the Albuquerque Journal: * * * New Mexicans Should Take Advantage of Education Tax Credits By Vincent Torres New Mexico has a choice to make. The state can empower New Mexico families with scholarships to send their children to schools that meet their needs, or it can allow those dollars to flow to children in other states. The right choice is clear: New Mexico's children should come first. Thanks to President Donald Trump and Congress, families nationwide now have access to the first-everfederal tax credit scholarship for K-12 students, created by the Working Families Tax Cuts package. These scholarships are a lifeline for students stuck in schools that aren't working for them. Families can use them for private, charter, religious, homeschool or supplemental education services.
Under the tax credit program, every taxpayer can receive up to a $1,700 tax credit by donating the same amount to a nonprofit scholarship granting organization. This isn't a deduction. It's a dollar-for-dollar credit. Give $1,700, and you get $1,700 back. It's essentially directing your tax dollars straight into scholarships for kids.
To read the full article, click here (https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/opinion-new-mexicans-should-take-advantage-of-education-tax-credits/2938698).
* * *
Vincent Torres, Executive Director, America First New Mexico
This opinion article was co-authored by Jodi Hendricks
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/new-mexicans-should-take-advantage-of-education-tax-credits
[Category: ThinkTank]