American Committee for US-Russia Accord

The Great Betrayal: How The Democrats Became The Party of War, hailed by Professor Richard Sakwa as “a brilliant, timely, and important achievement,” is available now from OR x Nation Books.

***

Joe Biden’s presidency may ultimately come to be seen as a cautionary tale. Here was a president who showed little interest in entertaining arguments that might have contradicted his most deeply held assumptions.^[1] And there were precious few within the upper ranks of the administration who might have attempted to do so, after all, only policy hands and political operatives who had come up through the ranks of the Clinton and Obama administrations or had longstanding ties to the citadels of the foreign policy community were invited into the fold.^[2]

The message BidenWorld sent early on was that heterodox voices, even tepid ones, were not welcome. Consider the case of a respected expert on Russian affairs, Dr. Matthew Rojansky, who was then serving as the director of the Kennan Institute at the Congressionally-funded Woodrow Wilson Center. Rojansky had been denied a position on the Biden NSC because he was viewed as “soft” on Russia. Administration officials feared that appointing Rojansky would, as a contemporaneous report by Politico put it, “signal a conciliatory U.S. policy toward Moscow.”^[3] The incident had echoes of the 2009 Freeman affair, when a foreign lobby (Israel’s) mobilized its allies in the media and on Capitol Hill to block an appointment it deemed threatening to its agenda. This time around, another foreign lobby (Ukraine’s) slammed the door on Rojansky.  From the start, Biden’s White House was a closed circle—new names, new faces, and new thinking were not welcome.

The parallel one reaches for to best describe the inner workings of the Biden White House is that of the Reagan White House. Back then, a chief executive of questionable sentience relied on a tight circle of political operatives to run the day-to-day operations of the White House. During Reagan’s first term, that job fell to a “Troika” consisting of Chief of Staff James Baker, Counselor to the President Ed Meese, and Deputy Chief of Staff Mike Deaver. Meese did policy, Deaver was the image-maker. Baker was in charge of everything else. Joe Biden had a Troika of his own: White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, Counselor to the President Steve Ricchetti, and Deputy Chief of Staff Bruce Reed. Klain and Ricchetti were longtime centrist Democratic operatives. Reed was the policy wonk. No friend of progressives, Reed came up through the ranks as a centrist policy adviser to Senator Al Gore in the 1980s. He later served as a domestic policy adviser to President Clinton.

On the foreign policy side of the ledger, what was old was new again. Like Presidents Carter and Clinton—and his erstwhile Democratic rivals Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders—Biden embraced a vision of the world divided between democracy and authoritarianism. While the script had been slightly updated since the end of the Cold War, the story was a familiar one: The US and its NATO allies were now said to be threatened by an “authoritarian axis” led by Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia. The axis is also said to include Iran, North Korea and other revisionist powers. Discussions regarding our putative “friends” and “allies” that also happen to be authoritarian (Saudi Arabia, Turkey) or ethno-nationalist (Israel, Ukraine) are usually excluded from the schema.  In December 2021, Biden hosted a ‘Summit for Democracy’ that brought together leaders from over 100 countries in support of a rather amorphous strategy to “defend” democracy—a cause that Biden claimed was “the defining challenge of our time.”

More thoughtful men than Biden saw things rather differently. George Kennan, for one, felt that there was nothing “more egocentric than the embattled democracy.” The problem, as Kennan correctly foresaw, was that an embattled democracy will tend “to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision to everything else.  Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil.  Its own side is the center of all value.”^[4] While Kennan wrote those words in 1961, it would be hard to find a better description of the politics of the New Cold War. The main deliverable of Biden’s “democracy” conference was the creation of a Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal, which, at a cost of nearly half-a-billion dollars to US taxpayers, would seek to promote “democracy, fight corruption, and defend human rights worldwide.”^[5]

As with so many of the ideas and programs championed by the Democratic establishment since the end of the Cold War, the “autocracy vs. democracy” paradigm borrowed liberally from the neocon playbook. Biden’s old friend, the late Senator John McCain, had long called for the creation of a global “League of Democracies.” Speaking at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution in 2007, McCain said the new league would, “form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom.” It would be able to “bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow’s and Beijing’s approval.^[6] McCain’s proposal might just as easily have come from the pen of Samantha Power. As with the men and pigs at the conclusion of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, when it comes to the neocons and the Democratic elite, it is now impossible to say which is which.

 

NOTES:

^[1] For example, no dissent on matters relating to Israel was welcome; see: https://www.commondreams.org/news/biden-silencing-dissent-gaza. For reporting on his tyrannical streak, see, for example, https://thebrunswicknews.com/president-biden-has-notorious-temper-yells-curses-frequently-in-private-report/article_107fcc8f-b3f8-5dad-a447-083dbde1eaa1.html

^[2] Including The Brookings Institution, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The German Marshall Fund, The Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Center for American Progress, The Center for a New American Security, and The Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies.

^[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/19/biden-russia-expert-483000

^[4] For Kennan, see: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/12/17/hang-up-the-magical-thinking-and-try-strategic-empathy-on-for-size/

^[5] On the Democracy Summit and Biden’s remarks, see: https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/23/summit-for-democracy-summary-of-proceedings/

^[6] For McCain’s remarks, see: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline/docs/McCain_05-01-07.pdf

When Vladimir Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, he claimed one of his goals was the country’s “denazification.” The Kremlin still uses this narrative as a cornerstone of its war propaganda.

The New York Times columnist depicts Ukraine as belonging in the ranks of the world’s great powers on pragmatic as well as ethical considerations. That is true militarily, in French’s view, not only because of Ukraine’s surprising tenacity in the face of Moscow’s brutal aggression, but because of the country’s tangible achievements in drone warfare and because it might possess “the largest and most battle-hardened land force in the Western world.”

Over the weekend, Finnish President Alexander Stubb suggested that Ukraine is in its “best position” since the start of the country’s war with Russia. He claimed that for every Ukrainian soldier killed, eight Russians are dying. Yet if that were true, the number of Russian dead would exceed the size of the Russian army. The war propaganda machine is back in full force, and it relies on the assumption that the rest of us cannot count.

Prof. John Mearsheimer pushes back against widespread Western claims that Russia aims to conquer all of Ukraine. In his assessment, he argues that the narrative of Putin seeking full territorial control or broader European expansion is “completely wrong,” pointing instead to the limits and realities of the ongoing war. His remarks challenge dominant interpretations of Moscow’s long-term intentions and the strategic assumptions shaping the conflict debate.

The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China reaffirm their comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination in the new era.

This month, as delegates from around the world gathered at the United Nations to talk about nuclear nonproliferation, the U.S. and Russia chose to remind everyone just how much destructive power they command.

Over the course of his three presidential campaigns (2016, 2020, 2024), President Donald J. Trump promised an America First foreign policy—one that would see America pull back from postwar European security commitments, end the war in Ukraine, and keep the country out of the Middle East “forever wars” that so beguiled (and then bedeviled) every US president for the past quarter of a century.

Earlier this month, Mendel gave an extensive interview to Tucker Carlson. She made many explosive remarks, questioning Zelensky’s character and his commitment to democracy and fighting corruption. But her most significant comments were on Ukraine’s NATO aspirations and the negotiations in Istanbul in the early weeks of the war.

Dr. Nicolai N. Petro is a Senior Washington Fellow at the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy and a Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island. He is a member of the ACURA Board.

There’s a Russian saying, “don’t divide the hide of a bear not yet killed,” that warns against making plans based on a positive outcome that may never happen. It is a warning that fell on deaf ears as activists promoted a fantasy of Russia breaking up into city states and ethnic republics, blending both right-wing and liberal fantasies.

Western policymakers left with little option but to talk to decolonial activists or exiled politicians will find that they do not represent any sizable movement within Russia. With access to Russia restricted and remaining avenues for dialogue discouraged, it’s no wonder that Cassandras keep getting things wrong.

From November 2025. The scholar Geoffrey Roberts calls it a “tour de force.”

As Ukraine’s political-military situation both at the front and in the rear deteriorates, the potential for major political crises and coup plots against the rule of Volodomyr Zelenskiy grows.

NATO is scrambling to fortify a windswept Baltic island that military planners increasingly see as one of the alliance’s most exposed — and strategically vital — front lines against Russia.

Some Russia–Ukraine war specialists I spoke to questioned Mendel’s reliability because of her falling out with Zelensky, because she was no longer in office, because of her history of making lurid claims, and because of the vagueness and innuendo in the Carlson interview. Others found her testimony credible and consistent with the known facts. Either way, it is important to distinguish—as Mendel often did—between what she heard first-hand and what she heard from others.

Kuznick and Hughes discuss the NPT review conference, nuclear deterrence, first strike thinking, Trump and launch power, pressure for more states to seek nuclear weapons, the role of US allies in the Gulf, Europe, and Japan, and the small but real hope offered by the nuclear ban treaty and public action.

The warning from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the U.S. and European governments to evacuate their diplomats and citizens from Kyiv before Russia launches “systematic strikes” marks a drastic escalation in the Ukraine conflict — with a serious risk of drawing the Washington and NATO into direct conflict with Russia.

Not so long ago, there was a time when meetings of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels focused overwhelmingly on external dangers confronting the alliance. Yet throughout his second presidency, Donald Trump’s long-running frustration with Europe has raised questions not merely about policy, but about NATO’s future itself.

The Baltic States and the neighboring Russian exclave of Kaliningrad are widely regarded as the most dangerous potential flashpoint for a direct war between NATO and Russia; partly for genuine strategic reasons, and partly because of the intense paranoia at work on both sides.