ISDEI Instituto de Seguridad, Defensa y Estudios Internacionales

WASHINGTON — The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency , Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn of the Army, and his civilian deputy, David R. Shedd, will retire by early fall, the agency said in an email to its employees on Wednesday. The two men are stepping down at a time when the Defense Intelligence Agency is shifting its priorities from providing intelligence to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to working more closely with the C.I.A. to gather and distribute information on global issues like the proliferation of weapons and rising powers like China. In a statement, the Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. John Kirby, said that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel “appreciates the service of these two dedicated and professional leaders,” and that the retirements had been planned “for some time.” But two senior American officials said tensions had flared between General Flynn and some of his Pentagon colleagues who balked at changes he wanted to make, including cuts to what he viewed as outdated intell

April marks the two-year anniversary of the Kurdistan Regional Government's stoppage of oil exports to protest what many Kurds considered unfair export terms from Baghdad. The Iraqi government responded by severely constraining budgetary allowances for Arbil. But with Iraqi national elections slated for April 30, there are indications that the Kurds' years-long game of brinksmanship with Baghdad could be coming to an end. In the years surrounding the 2012 U.S. withdrawal from Iraq , nervous Kurds were desperate to find a regional backer to support their local autonomy against Iraq's Sunni and Shiite Arab political forces. Starting in 2003, Turkish firms eager to gain a share of their regional government's energy revenue windfall built roads, schools and power plants with favorable credit terms as part of Turkish foreign policy prerogatives for the region. Facing rising authoritarianism and a consolidation of political power in Baghdad, the Kurds made a gamble in April

Russian President Vladimir Putin with Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin (L), one of the officials targeted in new U.S. sanctions, in October.(ALEXEI NIKOLSKY/AFP/Getty Images) Summary The United States expanded sanctions on Russian officials and companies on April 28 in response to what Washington says is continued Russian aggression in Ukraine . Though the list of sanctions includes many of Russia's most important figures and entities, it remains fairly weak -- particularly in light of recent U.S. government leaks indicating that Washington was considering imposing far more painful sanctions on Russia . The European Union is expected to release its expansion of sanctions on April 29, but these will likely be even weaker than those imposed by the United States. These moves will probably elicit a response from Moscow, but neither side appears to have the appetite to take more forceful action against the other. Nonetheless, efforts by Russian companies to protect themselves from tougher U.S.

NATO weathered the Cold War significantly better than its Warsaw Pact rivals, but it did not escape unscathed. Without the anchor of the Soviet bloc, NATO was cut adrift from its strategic imperative , suffering diminished budgets and dwindling force levels. Despite this, NATO has conducted more operations since the fall of the Soviet Union than it did during the previous four decades of carefully orchestrated stalemate. A modern NATO has been forced to learn new lessons, forged in the crucible of intervention, global terrorism and numerous Balkan winters. The new, adaptive framework of NATO has enabled members to conserve resources and avoid the associated costs of large standing forces. However, without these large armies the alliance has lost some of its deterrence capability, forcing it to be a relatively slow reactor to world events. Analysis The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 compelled NATO to re-evaluate its reason for bei

Workers weld together sections of the South Stream pipeline in Serbia in November 2013.(ANDREJ ISAKOVIC/AFP/Getty Images) Summary EU institutions and some countries in Central and Eastern Europe keep moving in their own directions regarding relations with Russia. In recent months, the South Stream pipeline -- which could bring Russian natural gas to countries in the Balkans and Central Europe, bypassing Ukraine -- has become a source of friction between Brussels and Moscow as well as between the European Union and the member states involved in the project. Bulgaria has been pushing for the construction of the pipeline despite warnings by the EU Commission that it could go against European norms. Austria recently also regained interest in the project. The Ukraine crisis is deepening existing divisions within the European Union, and the debate over South Stream -- where some member states are putting their national interests ahead of Brussels' policies -- is a perfect illustration. F

Analysis Editor's Note: The following is an internal Stratfor document listing significant meetings and events planned for the next week. Stratfor analysts use this to stay informed of the activities and travel of world leaders and to guide their areas of focus for the week. EUROPE April 28: EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton will meet with new Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic and other Serbian government officials in Belgrade to discuss Serbia's ties with the European Union and the normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo. April 28: Slovakia and Ukraine plan to sign a memorandum on the possible reverse flow of natural gas. April 28-29: Tunisian Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa will visit Paris to meet with French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. April 29: The French parliament will discuss the spending cuts proposed by the French government. April 29: The EU Political and Security Committee will meet in Brussels. April 30-May 2: Pakistani

Supporters of a Palestinian accord with a poster of Mahmoud Abbas outside the Hamas prime minister's home in Gaza City on April 23, 2014.(SAID KHATIB/AFP/Getty Images) Summary Despite the announcement of a power-sharing agreement between Hamas and Fatah that would end the rift between the Palestinian faction that governs Gaza and the one that rules the West Bank, much must happen before a single coalition government rules all the Palestinian territories. Still, the mere fact that the two sides have begun formalizing a path toward political unification of the territories has widespread implications for the region. The impact will fall not just on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also on various regional players and the United States. Analysis The Fatah-Hamas deal allows for a five-week period to form a technocratic interim government, with new elections in six months. A senior leader from Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas' main Islamist rival, said that this structure could

Summary NATO was originally created as a counterweight to the might of the Soviet Union after World War II. The deep yet fractious roots that enabled the alliance to prosper have also presented challenges to its leadership and management. More than an organization, NATO is best envisioned as an overarching structure made up of individual, autonomous parts, each with different thought processes, competencies and imperatives. NATO adapted to survive beyond the Cold War but its continued existence remains under threat. Analysis The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was conceived and designed as an intergovernmental military alliance, based on the principle of collective defense. At its inception four years after the end of World War II, NATO was primarily seen as a deterrent against Soviet aggression in Western Europe, keeping vulnerable states in a Western orbit and checking the rise of Eurasian power. Click to Enlarge As a core contributor, the U.S. military footprint in Europe was