The Transatlantic Alliance's Greatest Threat Is Coming From Within

By: Anna Douglas Piper

Russia and China do not need to defeat the transatlantic alliance. They only need to wait for it to defeat itself.

As NATO allies debate defense spending, China’s rising influence in Indo-Pacific relations, and how to proceed in the Russia-Ukraine War, a crisis is taking place closer to home. On both sides of the Atlantic, the democratic foundations that the alliance was built upon are under strain, which presents urgent security concerns. Democratic erosion within the transatlantic community is a greater long-term threat to the alliance than external adversaries, and the U.S. and EU must prioritize shared democratic resilience as a strategic imperative.

The Atlantic Council’s Sona Muzikarova argues that this populist advance, while once confined to certain regions, is growing into a wider cross-continental movement. Democratic reversals are not new, as waves occurred between the world wars and during the Cold War. However, we are now seeing shifts in countries that were previously considered stable, including the US, India and Greece. These shifts have been driven not by underground, secretive military-style coups, but by democratically elected leaders that appear to be using a similar set of strategies to expand power. Emerging trends in previously reliable Poland, Romania, and Czechia reflect a growing concern of a cross-continental shift.

The security threat is not simply that citizens around the world are losing faith in democracy. The threat is that political elites are responding to this loss of faith by moving away from the institutional commitments that hold alliances together. Hungary is a clear example in its developments of the past 15 years. Viktor Orbán, after winning election in 2010, subsequently diminished the power of the Hungarian National Assembly, rewrote the constitution, and moved away from democratic rule. Today, Hungary is seen as an uncooperative antagonist in the EU, and tens of thousands of citizens have gathered in the past year to protest Orbán’s rule. Researchers show that this phenomenon is not simply between pro- and anti-democratic values, but between anti-establishment and technocratic approaches to governance. 

On Washington’s end of the alliance, citizens are experiencing a similar erosion of trust in institutions and democratic norms. According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World Index, the United States has fallen by 11 points from 2011 to 2023 in democratic health, placing the U.S. behind many long-standing democratic nations on the 100-point scale. Freedom House studies attribute the phenomenon in the US to structural forces, including deepening political polarization, persistent inequality, and a rapidly changing media environment. However, the key is in how leaders respond. If institutional resilience depends on how political elites proceed, then the future of the US democratic health relies on elite commitment to the institutions that sustain it. Elite behavior is the decisive variable in whether democratic institutions hold; when considering this trend alongside parallel institutional pressures in Europe, these developments have the potential to threaten the alliance as a whole. 

Reports show that the world is seeing “a truly global wave of autocratization,” and for the first time in over 50 years, countries are moving more towards autocracy than democracy. These developments are reflected in weakening transatlantic relations, which are occurring simultaneously in trade, security, international institutions, and democratic values. This phenomenon is an unprecedented convergence of pressures, and one that threatens the entire European-American order. 

It is necessary to understand how these developments threaten the security of both regions. If an alliance built to defend democracy is only as strong as the democracies within it, what happens when those democracies begin to fracture from within? When the anchors of the transatlantic alliance experience declining trust in democracy, the entire system is called into question – this effectively weakens the credibility of the democratic model that the alliance itself is built to defend. If external adversaries like Russia and China seek to exploit democratic weakness for their own gain, current trends mean there will soon be little unified alliance left to resist them. 

There are many evolving attitudes on how to combat this problem. Some argue directly against "appeasing" the US, claiming that strengthening Europe as an independent region is necessary to ensure resilience in the face of changing relations with Washington. Yet abandoning the alliance system would leave both regions more vulnerable, not less. The key is to make elite defection from democratic norms more costly, to reduce the appeal of prioritizing short-term political incentives over long-term institutional commitments. Mechanisms in the EU exist for member states who violate democratic norms, but enforcement has been weak. Institutional structures must be strengthened in order to constrain self-serving elite behavior, regardless of who holds power. Judicial independence, press freedom, and legislative oversight must all be bolstered, both domestically and in international institutions. Internationally, this also means increasing transatlantic engagement between elites to reduce isolationism and strengthen shared norms. Bringing together policymakers, economic leaders and engaged citizens can strengthen the transatlantic relationship, making individual elite defection less likely and much harder. These strategies are not just national political concerns, but alliance assets. 

University of Chicago professor Susan Stokes argues that “effective resistance to democratic erosion requires strong institutions, social trust, and political elites committed to upholding democratic norms.” If elite commitment is the current variable, then the solution is building domestic institutions and transatlantic structures that make democratic commitment the rational choice for elites. If this doesn’t happen, the entire alliance system is in danger. 

And, as political scientist John Peterson has demonstrated, “the futures of the liberal order, transatlantic alliance and western democratic politics are inextricably bound together.” The transatlantic alliance was built to defend democracy from external threats. Today, the greater threat is coming from within, and if not corrected, could bring down the system before Russia and China even need to try. 

The Ongoing Persecution of the Uyghurs: China’s False “War on Terror”

By: Nilufer Molla

The Uyghurs are a distinct Turkic ethnic group inhabiting the northwest region of China. Officially called the “Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,” Uyghurs know it as “East Turkestan.” 

For two brief periods in the twentieth century, Uyghurs achieved liberation and established an East Turkestan Republic. However, China has continued to seize the land. Ever since, the Uyghurs have struggled for legitimate autonomy and have faced continuous human rights violations and oppression. As the Chinese government restricts Uyghur culture, it simultaneously targets Islam. 

Today, this repression is justified under the banner of counterterrorism. What the Chinese government may call a “war on terror” is something else entirely.

The Chinese government claims the repression of Uyghurs is necessary for national security. Still, targeting the religion of the Uyghurs is an attempt at cultural assimilation by detaching them from a key part of their identity. 

Islam has shaped Uyghur culture following their collective conversion between the 10th and 15th centuries. It has become deeply integrated into the culture, language, and lifestyle, which is precisely why it is a target.

Since China’s occupation, Uyghurs’ deep connection with Islam has acted as a “shield”  in resisting the Chinese government’s attempts at cultural erasure and assimilation. Contrastingly, Hui Muslims, China’s largest ethnoreligious group, have enjoyed religious freedom. The Hui possess a blend of Islamic and Chinese cultures. Since they are better integrated into Chinese society due to cultural similarity, their religious practices are tolerated, proving China’s unique targeting of Uyghur Muslims due to their resistance to cultural assimilation. 

Now, over a million Uyghurs have been imprisoned in internment camps, of which the Chinese government first denied the existence. When finally addressed in 2018, they were branded as “reeducation” centers meant to teach Mandarin and prevent the influence of extremism. Though there have been a variety of reasons to place Uyghurs in these camps, it appears their only crime is being Muslim. 

Leaked documents reveal the listed reasons for detention to include growing a beard, praying regularly, and wearing a veil. Furthermore, in 2019, the U.S. embassy and consulates in Japan reported that Chinese authorities forced Uyghur Muslims to eat pork. If refused, they were vaguely labeled as “extremists” or threatened with being sent to the internment camps. As terrorism involves religiously motivated violence, it is clear that the grounds for accusing these Uyghurs of terrorism are completely illogical due to the irrelevance of peaceful expression to religious extremism and violent terrorism.

Especially during Ramadan, Uyghurs are at a greater risk. Ramadan is a sacred month in the Islamic calendar during which Muslims fast and focus on deepening their spiritual devotion. For roughly a month, Muslims wake up for a small meal called “Suhoor” or “Sehri” before the first prayer to prepare for their day’s fast. 

For Uyghur Muslims in China, just turning on the living room light to do so poses a great risk. 

They often resort to pre-preparing their meals and eating in the dark to avoid detection and risk being sent to the camps or abused. In Islam, eating in the bathroom is strongly discouraged; however, for some, it is the only room in the house without windows, so the light can be left on while they eat. Because if light could be seen from the home, it was enough reason to believe they were fasting Muslims. 

A 2016 interview conveyed the horrors of being caught. Adil Abdulghufur recalls “one disaster” that happened to him. Chinese authorities violently dragged him from his bed while he was asleep. Covered in blood, he continuously asked what he had done. They said, “You screamed ‘Allahu Akbar.’” He pleaded that he was not praying, but, unconvinced, they beat him, chained him, and hung a “25-kilogram cement board around his neck,” with the words “For stubborn prisoners who refuse to bow to Chinese rule” carved on it. 

Unique to these “prisoners,” questions would be administered to “test” them, such as:

“Were the heavens and the earth created by God or by nature?”

“Is East Turkistan part of China, or is it a separate country?”

“Will you pray in the future?”

“What kind of person is Osama Bin Laden?”

“If Chinese and Uyghurs live together, will society flourish?”

Required to answer only with “yes” or “no” (and there is a “correct” answer for each question), Uyghurs will be categorized into groups based on “compliance,” which would determine their fate.

Especially after September 11, 2001, governments all over the world expanded surveillance to combat terrorism. China seized this moment. By framing the Uyghur identity as a security threat, the Chinese government found an international cover for policies that would otherwise be viewed for what they really are: cultural erasure and assimilation. 

As China targets Uyghurs while tolerating Hui Muslims’ religious expression, it’s clear that the so-called “war on terror” is actually a war on Uyghur identity.

Artificial Intelligence Is the 21st Century’s Nuclear Weapon

By: Margaret Jane Piatos

American companies have spent $335 billion and counting on artificial intelligence (AI) between the years 2013 and 2023, and today, 79% of Americans interact with AI several times a day. What began as a niche technological field has quickly become embedded in finance, healthcare, education, defense, and even personal decision-making. As governments and corporations race to dominate this emerging technology, the pace of development far outstrips that of regulation.

AI is as dangerous and as strategically transformative as nuclear weapons were in the 20th century, and it must be governed with the same urgency and international cooperation before competition turns into catastrophe.

In the 20th century, nuclear weapons transformed international politics almost overnight. They redefined how we fought wars, and consequently, who held hegemony. But nuclear technology also forced the world to confront a terrifying reality: innovation without restraint could mean total destruction. 

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 killed an estimated 100,000 people. Modern tactical nuclear weapons are far more powerful, and at the height of the Cold War, the global arsenal grew large enough to destroy human civilization many times over.  It took regulations such as the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Cold War arms-reduction agreements like SALT and START, to stabilize the system. 

Today, artificial intelligence is advancing even faster — and with far fewer guardrails.

Unlike nuclear weapons, AI does not require rare uranium or massive reactors. However, it requires data, computing power, and engineering talent. That makes it easier to develop and more difficult to contain. Yet its strategic impact may be just as profound. AI can enhance cyberwarfare, power autonomous weapons systems, manipulate financial markets, disrupt infrastructure, and more. The state that leads in AI will not just have faster software, but it will have a structural advantage in economic productivity, military capability, and information control.

And countries know it.

The United States and China are locked in a race for AI dominance. Washington frames AI leadership as critical to national security and economic competitiveness. Although the United States still maintains a far larger nuclear arsenal with 5,277 warheads compared to China’s 600 warheads, today's balance of power may not be determined by stockpile size alone. 

Beijing has openly declared its ambition to become the world leader in AI, embedding AI development into its long-term industrial planning and military modernization strategy. In some areas, particularly the integration of AI into surveillance systems and military deployments, China may be moving faster and with greater coordination than Western approaches. 

The European Union, meanwhile, is racing to shape regulatory standards that could define global norms. Through its landmark AI Act, the EU has moved to classify AI systems by risk level, impose strict transparency requirements on high-risk applications, and ban certain uses such as social scoring and some forms of biometric surveillance. By prioritizing safety and human oversight, the EU is attempting to export its regulatory model beyond Europe’s borders. If successful, the EU could set the rules of the road for AI governance worldwide, not by dominating innovation, but by defining the standards companies must meet to access one of the world’s largest markets. 

This competition resembles the early years of the arms race, but with one critical difference: AI development is primarily driven by private companies operating across borders. Governments are competing not only with rivals abroad but also, motivated by President Trump’s AI challenge, racing to outpace domestic innovation. 

That dynamic creates a dangerous incentive structure. When speed becomes the priority, safety becomes secondary. The result is an emerging AI arms race without clear rules or shared red lines.

The risks are not hypothetical. Autonomous weapons systems could make battlefield decisions faster than human oversight allows. AI-generated misinformation could undermine public trust in democratic institutions. Advanced cyber capabilities could cripple infrastructure without a single missile being launched. And as AI systems grow more complex, even their creators may struggle to predict their behavior.

Nuclear weapons taught the world a painful lesson: revolutionary technologies cannot be managed through optimism alone. Governance must evolve alongside capability. 

AI requires a similar mindset. It means establishing guardrails before chaos forces them upon us. Nations should cooperate to limit fully autonomous lethal weapons, prevent AI from controlling nuclear launch systems, and establish monitoring mechanisms for the most advanced AI models. Export controls on advanced semiconductor chips are already a step toward recognizing AI’s strategic importance, but they are only the beginning.

Some argue that AI is too embedded in civilian life and too rapidly evolving to be regulated like nuclear weapons. They are right that AI is different. But that makes regulation more urgent. And we must treat it as such, before competition becomes a catastrophe.