Institute for Study of War
Ongoing conflicts analyzed by ISW
The Institute for the Study of War is a prominent think tank based in Washington, D.C. that provides in-depth analysis on ongoing conflicts around the world. Founded in 2007 by Kimberly Kagan, the institute has established itself as a leading authority on national security and defense issues. The Keane Center, a key component of the institute, is named after General Jack Keane, a retired four-star general who serves as the institute's chairman of the board.
The Keane Center produces open-source intelligence on ongoing conflicts, issuing early warnings and proposing policy options to the United States and its allies. This intelligence is gathered through a team of experienced analysts who closely monitor developments in conflict zones, often providing real-time analysis of emerging trends and patterns. The center's work is widely respected and frequently cited by policymakers, military leaders, and journalists covering national security issues.
In 2020, the Institute for the Study of War received a $1.5 million grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation to support its research on the conflict in Ukraine. This funding enabled the institute to expand its team of analysts and produce a series of in-depth reports on the conflict, including a comprehensive study on the role of Russian proxy forces in eastern Ukraine. The institute's work on Ukraine has been widely praised, with General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, describing it as "essential reading" for anyone seeking to understand the conflict.
The institute's research is led by a team of experienced analysts, including Jennifer Cafarella, a renowned expert on the Syrian civil war, and Katherine Zimmerman, a leading authority on the conflict in Yemen. These analysts, along with others, work closely with the institute's leadership, including Dr. Kimberly Kagan and General Jack Keane, to produce high-quality research that informs policy debates and supports the development of effective national security strategies. With its strong team of analysts and its commitment to producing rigorous, open-source intelligence, the Institute for the Study of War has established itself as a trusted source of information on ongoing conflicts around the world.
The institute's work has significant implications for policymakers and military leaders, who rely on its analysis to inform their decisions on national security issues. As the global security landscape continues to evolve, the Institute for the Study of War is likely to remain a key player in shaping the debate on conflict and national security, providing critical insights and analysis to those who need it most. With a budget of over $5 million, the institute is well-positioned to continue its work, expanding its research and analysis to cover emerging conflicts and security challenges.
As I reflect on the Institute for Study of War, I firmly believe that its work is crucial in understanding the complexities of modern conflict. My thesis is that without institutions like ISW, policymakers and citizens would be ill-equipped to navigate the intricacies of global warfare. If nothing changes and the status quo persists, I fear that authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations will continue to exploit information vacuums and win the battle for narrative control. Ultimately, if we fail to support institutions like ISW, the likes of Russia, China, and extremist groups will emerge victorious, shaping the global security landscape to their advantage.
Cross-reference independently — do not take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist uses AI-assisted reporting with web search. Always verify primary sources linked above.
This article is produced by NewsAnarchist's AI reporting system, not a human staff reporter. It's built from the primary source cited above (wire-service reporting (Reuters, AP, AFP), an official government or military statement, or a named NGO/UN report) and reports what that source states, attributed to it — casualty and battlefield claims in active conflicts are frequently contested by the parties involved, and we attribute them to whichever source made them rather than presenting them as settled fact. Part of our Conflict & Wars hub. Found an error? Tell us.