Statements from key historical figures at the time and Russia’s own tacit acceptance of NATO’s expansion in the 1990s and 2000s make it far-fetched to regard NATO’s continued enlargement as a betrayal of Russia.

The prevailing narrative that Ukraine is unduly benefiting at the expense of the United States disintegrates upon closer inspection of the diplomatic, economic, and military subtext of the war.

How does the sudden end of the Assad regime measure up against theories on the stability of autocratic rule?

While the outcome of the Ukraine war remains largely unknowable, one thing that seems certain is that it’s unlikely to involve Ukrainian neutrality.

For evidence of how one of the major justifications of the Ukraine War – protecting ethnic Russians – rings hollow, one need only look to the worsening situation for Russian minorities throughout the post-Soviet world.

Africa’s silence on the Ukraine war is counter-productive because any undermining to the rules-based international order, particularly with regard to the inviolability of state sovereignty, represents a net loss for the continent.

The Kremlin’s oft-cited justification for the Ukraine war - NATO expansion - not only doesn’t hold up to logical scrutiny, but is also frequently contradicted in the regime’s own top-level narrative.

It may be time to dust off an early Polish proposal for a peacekeeping force in unoccupied Ukraine.

It’s the optimist vision, not the revisionist nor realist one, which is most likely to be realized as the Ukraine war grinds toward its eventual resolution.

The Kremlin’s justification for invading Ukraine risks negative knock-on effects concerning minority rights in Europe and beyond.