Analysis

It is excellent, excellent, that a president at last puts the question of American innocence—the answer to which must be self-evident—very publicly before us. We as a nation have flinched from this for decades and so landed ourselves in all kinds of disgrace before others. As to “moral superiority,” this is for the record: Americans have no claim whatsoever. Who can take the ensuing outrage seriously?

Although I write a lot about current events, I am by training a historian, so it’s nice sometimes to take a break on this blog from contemporary problems and look instead at times past.

Nation Contributing Editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. With fighting having escalated between the US-backed Kiev government and Russian-backed rebels in Donbass, this week’s discussion focuses again on Ukraine’s role in the new Cold War since 2013–2014.

In recent weeks, we have watched with increasing alarm as Ukrainian forces have pushed forward into the demilitarised demarcation line in a “bite and hold” strategy. This was admitted by the Ukrainian deputy defence minister, Igor Pavlovsky, when he stated that “step by step … our boys have been advancing”.

Making Minsk work has always been easier said than done. Despite Trump’s election — and with it, the potential of reduced support from Washington — the Ukrainian public and political elite remain reluctant to make any kind of deal in eastern Ukraine.

The administration’s Iran obsession blinds them to the reality that Russia doesn’t see Iran as they do, which seems likely to set them up to fail if they make splitting Russia and Iran a condition for improved relations with Russia.

The claim that it was ‘Russian forces’ who ‘began’ the recent combat doesn’t fit the facts. As I pointed out in a recent post, even some very pro-Ukrainian sources admit that the Ukrainian army has been consistently breaking the ceasefire in order to conduct a ‘creeping offensive’ against the rebels in Donbass.

Similar to the two prior U.S. Presidential administrations, the current administration is making overtures towards Russia in the hope of improving U.S.-Russian relations. However, any penchant for deal-making must be buttressed by the clear understanding of other great powers’ legitimate security interests.

I was 9 when my family fled Soviet Ukraine. We lived as refugees in Austria before finally coming to the U.S. I was young enough to assimilate quickly but old enough to understand that even in the land of immigrants, immigrants are not always welcome.

Russia loomed large over the US election in 2016, with allegations of politically motivated hacking and calls for further examination of President Trump’s business dealings in the region, Tom Switzer of Australia’s ABC Radio hosted Professor Stephen F. Cohen and journalist Eleanor Clift to discuss.

It is notable how often defenders of the bogus “credibility” argument have to rely on making things up to advance their case. The U.S. didn’t “retreat” from the Middle East under Obama (more’s the pity), and it is a stretch to say that it “abandoned” Ukraine.

There seems to be little doubt that the Ukrainians began the latest upsurge in fighting. Even RFE/RL, which is normally very pro-Ukrainian, admits as much.

As national Democratic leaders continue to blame Russian President Putin for their 2016 defeat, they’re leading their party into a realignment with the neocons and other war hawks, reports Robert Parry.

Nation Contributing Editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War.  Cohen begins by reiterating his historical generalization that 20th-century episodes of détente — under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan — encountered ferocious opposition, even sabotage, on the part of enemies of more cooperative US-Russian relations…

In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, the American media has been in state of panic over allegations of Russian hacking. The frenzy has been promoted by war hawks in both major parties, bolstering their bellicosity. But what do average Americans really think of the Russians?

The telephone conversation last Saturday between the American and Russian presidents seems to have been amicable and constructive, at least in a general sense. They are reported to have discussed key world issues as potential partners, not as adversaries or enemies.

The world today is overwhelmed with problems. Policymakers seem to be confused and at a loss.

But no problem is more urgent today than the militarization of politics and the new arms race. Stopping and reversing this ruinous race must be our top priority.

Some blame Trump’s victory on Russian interference. Others question who Trump really takes orders from, implying that it is Russian president Vladimir Putin, not Trump, who will be calling the shots in the White House. Still others decry Trump’s praise for Putin, going so far as to label it “treasonous.”

As one who advised President Reagan on how to end the Cold War, I welcome your plans to discuss US-Russian relations. Relations have reached a state that is dangerous for both our countries and, in fact, the entire world.

American foreign policy, especially its Russia policy, is a runaway train without rails, driven by a troubling confluence of hubristic ideological influences and bureaucratized sectoral interests networked through Washington.