American Committee for US-Russia Accord

OFAC has targeted Russia’s major oil companies and insurers as well as over 180 tankers in the shadow fleet. But will it make a difference?

In 2019, Jimmy Carter shared his thoughts on China with the congregants at Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, Georgia. “Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?” Carter asked. “None. And we have stayed at war.” The U.S., he calculated, had enjoyed a paltry 16 years of peace in its 242-year history, making it “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” repeatedly trying to force others to “adopt our American principles.” “How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?” he asked rhetorically, noting that China had built some 18,000 miles of high-speed rail while the U.S. had “wasted, I think, $3 trillion” on military spending.  [Read more…] about ACURA Exclusive: Peter Kuznick and Ivana Nikolić Hughes: The Sanctification of Jimmy Carter is a Disservice to his Legacy

At yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) questioned Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), President-elect Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State.

America’s proxy war with Russia isn’t anything new. It’s been decades in the making. Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick explain what nuclear war would actually look like.

US President-elect Donald Trump’s statements about acquiring Greenland not exempting economic or military means received critical reactions from Russian officials. They called the development “dramatic” and predict “uncertainty and tension in the region.” Some Russian political commentators celebrated Trump’s statements while others expressed skepticism and noted the potential implications for Russia.

They say “all wars must end.” Yet how does this actually happen? First, all parties must agree — to go down that path together. Next, they must enter into formal negotiation, which almost always means horse trading, compromise, and accommodation. Finally, and most important, all belligerents must want the war to end.

In May 2017, the FBI opened an unprecedented counterintelligence probe of President Trump as an agent of Russia. Nearly 8 years later, the FBI continues to conceal the basis for that investigation.

President Boris Yeltsin stepped down on December 31, 1999 catapulting Vladimir Putin into office where he has been for the last 25 years. Has he been good for Russia or a bane?

The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical facts that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.

Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX  of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs….” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance: that included NATO.

Defeat, it is said, is a better teacher than success. The US Democratic Party has just suffered a shattering defeat, and desperately needs to learn from it. In the area of foreign policy, at least, this however appears unlikely — at least to judge by two interviews given by outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the New York Times and Financial Times.

Journalists who covered the story should acknowledge that this high-stakes line of reporting, with its breathless cable news and social media cheerleading, did not seriously bear out. The Mueller report concluded that investigators “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election of November 2024 has shredded the liberal script about the Ukraine war. That script was to offer unconditional moral and material support for a Ukrainian victory, defined minimally as recovery of the invaded territories of Crimea and Donbass. In Britain, it was considered almost treasonable to suggest otherwise.

A growing chorus of critics argues that Ukraine’s current dire situation is partly the result of Biden’s timid approach to helping Kyiv defend itself against Russia’s invasion. Excessively worried about triggering World War III, the administration shied away from swift and major weapons transfers that might have altered the war’s course at key junctures.

On Ukraine war policy, dissent has been rare from Democratic lawmakers. Two years ago, 30 progressive House Democrats sent a letter to Biden that suggested “a proactive diplomatic push” could be useful for achieving a ceasefire — but they quickly withdrew the letter after an angry backlash from hawkish leaders in their own party. (Republican lawmakers are split on Ukraine policy — many want the U.S. to recklessly confront China instead of Russia.)

When the world lives in anticipation of whether Trump’s second term brings promised peace and reduces the risk of nuclear WWIII, the war party is pushing its agenda. The magazine Foreign Affairs, the mouthpiece of the influential Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), warns about the heavy price of American retreat from the world stage and explains why Washington must reject isolationism and embrace primacy.  In the article, signed by the outgoing Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, there is plenty of criticism of his congressional opponents who insist that there be parity between increases in defense and those in nondefense discretionary spending.

Since Donald Trump’s reelection, his campaign promise to quickly end the Russia-Ukraine War has seemed increasingly out of reach as the situation in Ukraine continues to deteriorate.

Andrew Day and Connor Echols cover the foreign policy news of the week. In this episode, Day and Echols also discuss how progressives should approach Trump’s foreign policy. Plus: Anatol Lieven joins to discuss Russia-Ukraine peace talks.

The mainstream media ignored the passing of a beloved former colleague of mine, Ambassador Raymond Garthoff, whose career spanned the most important years of arms control and disarmament between the United States and the Soviet Union.  Over the years, the media have devoted much attention to the opponents of arms control such as George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Casper Weinberger, but have done little to explore the importance of its advocates and practitioners.