The first phase of Trump’s Gaza peace plan is proving difficult to maintain, and even if it does ultimately hold, there is a fundamental problem that could undermine the later phases, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

Phase 1 of Trump’s Gaza peace plan has mostly been implemented, but as @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, the subsequent phases are far less likely to succeed.

Rather than learn the lesson that military force is not sufficient to tackle nonstate actors, the Trump administration is doing it again, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

The military campaign against alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean could draw the U.S. into a “forever war” of Trump’s making, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

Thrilled to have an opportunity to revisit Wheat and Strategic Competition for @warontherocks.bsky.social w/ Justin Gilpin CEO Kansas Wheat Commission. We talk a lot about Russia and China and their most recent attempts to use wheat as a tool of statecraft. warontherocks.com/2025/10/how-...

Nine months into his presidency, it is clearer than ever that Trump wants to take the United States back to the late 19th century, both domestically and in its relations abroad. So how is he doing in that regard? Columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social examines that question:

It is now evident that, for Trump, the “again” in Make America Great Again refers to the late 19th century, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

What is the best means of crafting and using a military? U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seems to think it is a “warrior ethos.” But as @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, Eisenhower offered a much stronger argument:

Eisenhower wanted a society made up of Americans who were citizens first and soldiers second, and of soldiers who can behave in polite society, effectively offering a counterargument to the “warrior ethos” Pete Hegseth keeps pushing.

The U.S. defense secretary’s emphasis on warfighting ignores the other important factors that make a military cohesive and effective, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

If Patton could have delivered Hegseth’s speech, Eisenhower offered the counterargument in his farewell address. Instead of calling for a warrior culture, he warned of a society so militarized that it prioritized manufacturing weapons over building schools. Great one by @profpaulpoast.bsky.social.

From now on, I will be focusing on LinkedIn for posting on social media. I'll still use this platform to observe what people are saying, but I will be posting exclusively on LinkedIn. If you don't already follow me there, you can find me here: www.linkedin.com/in/paul-poas...

President Donald Trump might not be crying for Argentina, but he does seem concerned about the future of the country’s economy. In my latest for @wpr.bsky.social, I explain how the potential "Trump bailout" is just another instance of this time NOT being different.

IR Book of the Week! "War and Power" by @phillipspobrien.bsky.social. Book argues that the focus on what makes nations "Great Powers" has led to a skewed our understanding of the true sources of power, particularly in the context of war.

I shared my thoughts on Trump's "Gaza Peace Plan" 👇 TL,DR: There are some real positives, but unclear it will be accepted, hold, or enforced.

Just posted my immediate thoughts regarding the Hegseth/Trump speeches: TL,DR -- this was a big mistake by both.

ICYMI: "If the North Atlantic Treaty were to be written today, it might well be formulated as a consultative pact, with Article 4 being its core commitment." My latest for @wpr.bsky.social explores a key implication of how NATO is responding to Russian airspace incursions.

ICYMI: "If the North Atlantic Treaty were to be written today, it might well be formulated as a consultative pact, with Article 4 being its core commitment." My latest for @wpr.bsky.social explores a key implication of how NATO is responding to Russian airspace incursions.

Trump's UN speech was rooted in “an American First foreign policy” and Trump's own vision of the US as the "indispensable nation". That is the thought I shared with @salon.com for this piece www.salon.com/2025/09/27/a...

Looking forward to joining this @carnegiecouncil.org event on Friday as part of "Global Ethics Day". We'll be discussing how we are in a World at War in the midst of democratic backsliding. Thanks to Joshua Acosta for the invitation. You can RSVP here: info.carnegiecouncil.org/fracturing-d...

Looking forward to joining this @carnegiecouncil.org event on Friday as part of "Global Ethics Day". We'll be discussing how we are in a World at War in the midst of democratic backsliding. Thanks to Joshua Acosta for the invitation. You can RSVP here: info.carnegiecouncil.org/fracturing-d...

The main idea in my latest @wpr.bsky.social column is captured in this figure. During the 21st Century, consultative pacts have become the norm for alliance treaties. If the North Atlantic Treaty were written today, I'm not sure it would have Article 5.

Article 4, not Article 5, is now the bedrock of NATO. I explain what that means, and how it follows a general trend of alliances being about "consultation" rather than "mutual defense", in my latest for @wpr.bsky.social

Article 4, not Article 5, is now the bedrock of NATO. I explain what that means, and how it follows a general trend of alliances being about "consultation" rather than "mutual defense", in my latest for @wpr.bsky.social

IR Book of the Week! "AI, Automation, and War" by Anthony King. Rather than heading towards a future of "robot armies", this book shows how AI will be used like other military technological innovations: to improve the lethality of human armies.

IR Book of the Week! "AI, Automation, and War" by Anthony King. Rather than heading towards a future of "robot armies", this book shows how AI will be used like other military technological innovations: to improve the lethality of human armies.

I don't mean it in a braggadocious way, but I wrote about how prediction is hard...especially when it comes to world politics. Contrary to Trump's claims, you can't be right about everything.

Glad I could contribute to this forum on the relevance of the UN after 80 years. I see the UN -- specifically the UNSC -- as largely successful because, "The original purpose of the Security Council was to prevent war between the great powers, not to prevent the great powers from waging war."

As the General Debate opens at #UNGA, Council experts @leslievinjamuri.bsky.social, @busbyj2.bsky.social, @cooleyoneurasia.bsky.social, @kfriedhoff.bsky.social, @ckafura.bsky.social and @profpaulpoast.bsky.social weigh in on the UN's power and relevance. ⤵️ globalaffairs.org/commentary-a...

Multilateralism is facing serious challenges. Ian Hurd and Juliet Sorensen join @profpaulpoast.bsky.social to discuss the evolution and future of multilateralism through the lens of the UN's 80th anniversary. 📹 : brnw.ch/21wW01K

Marking #UN80 @global-affairs.bsky.social with a great panel on internationalism and intl institutions, feat. @profpaulpoast.bsky.social, @ianhurd.bsky.social, and Juliet Sorensen

ICYMI: in my latest for @wpr.bsky.social, I discuss how an embrace and even enthusiasm for using violence abroad inevitably links back to violence at home.

With Britain, Canada, and Australia officially recognizing Palestine as a state, I'm re-upping this recent @wpr.bsky.social piece on the topic. Some worry that this recognition rewards Hamas. It's not clear to me how that is the case, since the recognition is conditional on Hamas not being in power.

During his Riverside sermon, MLK said that when a country embraces "massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted" abroad, that directly leads to embracing the same approach home. In my latest for @wpr.bsky.social, I explain how we are seeing that dynamic today

It's not just that the world is violent. It's that the violence is now being openly embraced, even encourage...at home and abroad. I explore the world's growing "lawlessness" in my latest for @wpr.bsky.social

It's not just that the world is violent. It's that the violence is now being openly embraced, even encourage...at home and abroad. I explore the world's growing "lawlessness" in my latest for @wpr.bsky.social

Next week, join @polisciatnu.bsky.social's Ian Hurd, @loyolachicago.bsky.social's Juliet Sorensen, and Council fellows Cécile Shea and @profpaulpoast.bsky.social as they discuss the evolution and future of multilateralism through the lens of the United Nations' 80th anniversary. brnw.ch/21wVTkc

On Monday, I'm moderating this @global-affairs.bsky.social panel on the Future of the United Nations and Multilaterialism. It's going to be a great discussion. For those interested and in the Chicago area, hope you can make it! globalaffairs.org/events/futur...

Who are China's Friends? According to a recent survey by the @global-affairs.bsky.social of the Chinese public, Xi was right to have Putin and Kim as his "guests of honor" at the recent military parade.

Of all the documents we read for "Wheat at War" (available here: www.amazon.com/Wheat-War-Al...), a favorite was from the French Foreign Ministry archives: the list of delegates to the 1916 Paris Economic Conference of the Allied Nations. It seems Jean Monnet forgot to pay his registration fee ;)

ICYMI: I explore "What China Wants?" in my latest @wpr.bsky.social. The TL,DR is that China wants to be at the center, but not the leader, of a new global order.

This is really interesting. Also properly referenced and with insight / knowledge few I've seen have.

Just posted a discussion explaining how I identified "What China Wants" in my latest for @wpr.bsky.social (explaining that this piece as a mix of "Pundit Paul" and "Professor Poast") 👇

China might aspire to regional primacy. But when it comes to global hegemony, Xi doesn’t seem to want China to be the “unipolar power,” @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

What does China (or, more specifically, Xi Jinping) want? Are they seeking to overturn the existing international order? Simply reform it? Embrace "hegemony"? I explore those questions -- based on a series of Xi speeches -- in my latest for @wpr.bsky.social.

What does China (or, more specifically, Xi Jinping) want? Are they seeking to overturn the existing international order? Simply reform it? Embrace "hegemony"? I explore those questions -- based on a series of Xi speeches -- in my latest for @wpr.bsky.social.

We did the 99 page test for our book Wheat at War. Page 99 jumps right into the shipping problems in WWI. US entry into the war made tonnage concerns SO MUCH WORSE. Interested? See our 99 page test to find out more! page99test.blogspot.com/2025/09/rose...

Our new book, "Wheat at War", was just put through the "Page 99" test! The test is simple: open any book to page 99. The contents *should* convey the book as a whole. How well did it do? As we explain in the below post, the test worked...to a degree :)

Just shared my immediate thoughts on Poland invoking NATO's Article 4

Greatly enjoyed joining the "Clearer than Truth" podcast to discuss current directions is US foreign policy and global order