Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 2, No. 10, October 2014.

Proton-M rocket blasts off from the launch pad at Baikonur cosmodrome. Russia’s space agency says three GLONASS-M satellites have been put into orbit by the Proton-M rocket. The satellites launched Thursday will join Russia’s Global Navigation Satellite System, or GLONASS. Source: Roscosmos via Flickr.

Darya Vakulenko
National Endowment for Democracy

Vladimir Putin’s most recent trip to Latin America is a sign of an ongoing Russian push to expand its influence and diversify foreign allies. In mid-July, the Russian president visited Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina and ended his trip in Brazil, where the BRICS countries gathered for their 6th annual summit.

Throughout his tour, Putin discussed similar topics: assistance in developing and exploring new energy sources; installation of Global Satellite Navigation System (GLONASS), the Russian response to the U.S. Global Positioning System (G.P.S.); and agreements on boosting the presence of official Russian media in Latin America.

On energy, Putin and his team showed real determination to strengthen Russia’s position in the region. In Argentina, Rosatom, a Russian state-owned nuclear agency, submitted a proposal to construct the third unit for the Atucha nuclear plant. [1],[2]  In Cuba, Russian state-oil companies were the most active of the delegation. Zarubezhneft  presented plans to develop oil fields west of Boca de Jaruca, and Rosneft will search for offshore deepwater oil.[3] Additionally, the Russian energy holding company, Inter RAO, will build four energy blocks for Maximo Gomez, an electrical plant in East Havana.[4]

Continue reading →

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 2, No. 8, August 2014.

Barack and Micelle Obama en route to Martha’s Vineyard. The president is doing something unusual with his summer vacation on Martha’s Vineyard: He’ll come back to Washington midway through the getaway to attend White House meetings. Source: GetArchive.

Priscilla Tacujan, PhD
Independent Consultant 

Critics from all sides of America’s political spectrum are either angry or exasperated over President Obama’s handling of foreign policy. Major U.S. newspapers, including those that endorsed his presidency, have recently published scathing editorials about how weak U.S. leadership has become. In the face of unfolding international crises, Western allies are forced to take a stance ahead of the President, sensing a lack of U.S. leadership and resolve that used to be the hallmark of American power in the world. U.S. leadership has come to mean mobilizing the coalition of nations, lending credence to the phrase “leading from behind.”

Continue reading →

In this May 1, 2011, image released by the White House and digitally altered by the source to obscure the details of a document in front of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, right with hand covering mouth, President Barack Obama, second from left, Vice President Joe Biden, left, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, right, and members of the national security team watch an update of the mission against Osama bin Laden in the White House Situation Room in Washington. As the world now knows well Obama ultimately decided to launch the raid on the Abbottabad compound that killed bin Laden, though faced with a level of widespread skepticism from a veteran intelligence analyst, shared with other top-level officials, which nearly scuttled the raid. That process reflected a sea change within the U.S. spy community, one that embraces debate to avoid “slam-dunk” intelligence in tough national security decisions. Source: White House Press.

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 2, No. 7, July 2014.

Lauren Hickok
Fellow

I. Introduction

On May 1, 2011, President Obama declared: “Tonight I can report to the American people and the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.”[1] The president had made a bold choice in authorizing Operation Neptune Spear.  His decision rested on an appraisal of several factors, which together determined the level of political risk associated with the mission: (1) the accuracy of the intelligence; (2) the ability of SEAL Team Six to succeed despite unexpected challenges; and (3) the costs to US national security, relative to the benefits. The president remained committed to countering al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, involved himself in the planning for Neptune Spear, and took on considerable risk in order to succeed. In final review, the president’s decision was not easy, or even prudent—but it succeeded.

Continue reading →