eastwestaccord

President Donald Trump’s unorthodox diplomacy has alarm bells ringing around the world, not least in Washington, D.C. While much of the inside-the-beltway elite is horrified at the prospect of America supposedly reorienting toward Russia, administration insiders have hinted at an ambitious plan to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing.

Never since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has he given a political interview. Nor has he made the slightest public comment on this war that is ravaging the heart of Europe. Vladislav Sourkov, arguably Russia’s most mysterious figure, has remained silent. Yet the man who ‘made’ Vladimir Putin, the shadowy adviser who inspired novelist Giuliano da Empoli to write The Wizard of the Kremlin, has a lot to say about Russia and the man who runs it. It took us some time to approach him – and convince him. This politician, who can be considered the ‘architect’ of the Russian political system, has distanced himself from the man he served for two decades, Vladimir Putin. No one knows what Sourkov is doing today. In the interview he gave us, he avoided the question.

Trump is doing broadbrush stroke deals that make great headlines but Putin is adding conditions that Trump can’t meet.

In an operation code-named “Lunar Hail,” the Biden administration authorized Ukraine to attack Crimea with long-range missiles and drones with the aim of forcing Russia “to pull their military infrastructure out of Crimea.” The U.S. would select the targets and “oversee virtually every aspect of each strike, from determining the coordinates to calculating the missiles’ flight paths.” The Biden administration even “authorized the military and C.I.A. to secretly work with the Ukrainians and the British on a blueprint of attack to bring the [Kerch Strait] bridge down.”

Looking at Ukraine, the war there has emerged over a collision between the core strategic interests of two countries, Russia and Ukraine.

Setting aside the nature and origin of Ukraine’s post-Maidan leadership, that country staked a claim that its future security could only be guaranteed by NATO membership. Yet, Russia saw NATO membership as a threat to its national security. It doesn’t matter whose interests you offer most weight to. The past eleven years has seen a complete absence of diplomatic effort in the space where those interests collided.

The visit by the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and special representative of the Russian president for investment and economic cooperation Kirill Dmitriev to Washington on April 2-3, the first such visit by a senior Kremlin official since 2022, appears to have been a modest achievement whose productive outcome will be crucial in the reset of US-Russia relations. 

Russia, emboldened by military success in Ukraine, signed what amounts to a mutual defense pact with Tehran. Given Russia’s demonstrated technological superiority in the production of precision-guided missiles like the Oreshnik, it would be a serious mistake to discount the quality and impact of Russian military assistance to Iran in a future conflict with the U.S. and Israel.

The Institute for Peace and Diplomacy USA organized a symposium where leading foreign policy experts examined how the Trump administration could broker a diplomatic settlement between Russia and Ukraine. Since then, President Trump has actively pushed to bring the Ukraine war to an end, resulting in some positive developments. While fighting continues, both Russia and Ukraine have verbally agreed to an immediate ceasefire. More significantly, there is now a real prospect for normalized U.S.-Russia relations, especially after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed the idea of a U.S. security guarantee or NATO membership for Ukraine. This essential step, later affirmed by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, removed a major source of tension between Russia and the West.

A key Kremlin negotiator is expected in Washington this week for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, two sources familiar with the plan said, the most senior Russian official to visit since Moscow invaded Ukraine in 2022.

Recent polls show the center right Christian Democrats (CDU-CSU) headed by prospective chancellor Friedrich Merz losing ground against the populist right Alternative for Germany (AfD), even before the new government has been formed.

Ambassador Matlock had a key role in negotiating an end to the Cold War, and he explores how the post-Cold War peace was lost.

Col. Douglas Macgregor on the war in Ukraine and more.

The February 1945 Yalta summit of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill is notorious as the harbinger of postwar Europe’s division into Soviet and Western spheres of influence.

Currently, there is a lot of chatter about the danger of a Yalta 2.0 – the fear that American-Russian talks about ending the Ukraine war could lead to another Great Power carve-up of Europe.

At last week’s Paris meeting of the ‘coalition of the willing’, Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron congratulated themselves on reinserting Europe into the peace process opened up by President Trump. In practice, they have done their best to derail it.

The MI6’s unholy alliance with the notorious Azov militia units comprising Ukrainian ultra-nationalists fired up by neo-Nazi ideology who wield control of the power apparatus in Kiev even today, is a key factor in the war, which complicates the prospects for President Trump’s efforts to end the war. Suffice to say, Britain’s strategic defiance of Trump with PM Keir Starmer stirring up a European revolt to pre-empt any US-Russia rapprochement is a calculated strategy.

However hard Emmanuel Macron and Sir Keir Starmer tried to disguise the fact, it was transatlantic divisions, rather than agreements, that emerged from Thursday’s Paris summit.

Trudging through this book, with its unique blend of endless encyclopedic tedium heaped on top of the analytical equivalent of a children’s pop-up story, can be best likened to navigating a swamp that’s shallow yet impossibly vast. But this rather unpleasant journey at least gives the reader ample time to meditate on the book’s central conceit.

Vindman unfortunately displays a woefully inadequate grasp of that which he tries to impugn: at no point does he demonstrate anything more than a cursory understanding of realist approaches to the issues he tries to elucidate.

Mate argues that the US and NATO provoked Russia in Ukraine by expanding NATO, dismantling arms control, installing military assets threatening Russia, meddling in Ukraine, and blocking multiple opportunities for peace.

While Democrats, Europeans, and Canadians have the right to feel betrayed by almost everything else Trump has done domestically and foreign, it is they, and not Trump, who are betraying Ukraine.

Instead of hysterical scaremongering and the demonization of alternative voices, Europe needs a calm, sober and evidence-based debate on peace in Ukraine and its own security.