American Committee for US-Russia Accord

Two Russian jets have “repeatedly and dangerously” intercepted a British Royal Air Force surveillance aircraft in April over the Black Sea, according to the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence.

The war in Ukraine has been defined by periodic bursts of certainty that Russiais on the back foot, if not close to collapse, and that Ukraine, conversely, is inches away from victory. We appear to be in the middle of one of these moments of euphoria now.

Washington and Moscow both enthusiastically celebrated the victory of the Allied “Grand Alliance” over the fascist powers at the end of World War II.  Since then, however, the two capitals have typically been on opposite sides of numerous nasty geostrategic struggles around the world.  They also have relished opportunities to work with foreign countries and political movements to create major headaches for the other great power.

After more than five years as president, and another four years in between terms contemplating his agenda if reelected, the president has merely announced the transfer of 5,000 personnel. All the while launching multiple aggressive military actions and pushing the largest military buildup in American history.

The true total of US national security spending in 2027 will exceed $2.5 trillion, far beyond the already record-shattering $1.5 trillion military budget President Trump has requested, according to veteran defense analyst Winslow Wheeler.

The United States is poised to maintain a favorable position in a multipolar world. The legacy institutions of international liberalism have largely lost their purpose, but retain residual power (which, ironically, the U.S. can leverage most effectively against other members of the “liberal order”).

An explosive new poll suggests that a majority of Ukrainians feel their future is more threatened by corruption in the government than by Russian military aggression.

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.”

I have said for a long time that the war in Ukraine will continue into 2027. Without a major rethink of policy on the European side, which currently appears extremely unlikely, or without a significant military escalation from the Russian side, which is possibly more likely, the war could in fact run on much longer than that.

What is it that has catapulted this 46-year-old blogger, TV host, participant in entertainment shows, and figure from high-society dramas to national fame?

In the established Western imagination, the Winter War of 1939–1940 occupies an honoured place as a moral fable: the small, plucky democracy resisting a totalitarian colossus, vindicated by skis, sniper rifles, and superior pluck. Today, with Kiev exhausted and Western capitals scouring history for usable analogies, the Finnish example is invoked with the regularity of a metronome. Resist Russia, the moral of the story runs, and the bear retreats.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday said he thinks the war with Ukraine could end soon.

“I think that the matter ⁠is coming to an end,” Putin told reporters, according to Reuters.

In Europe, the us exercises hegemony over what were, before 1945, its great-power rivals—in one case its former colonial master, now head servant.

Forty years on from Chernobyl, the catastrophe lingers in the public imagination as the worst nuclear disaster in history — a verdict reinforced by HBO’s mini-series and the Netflix retelling. But what if the lasting damage was not radiological but psychological: a global aversion to nuclear power that condemned Europe and North America to decades of energy precarity, dependence on Russian gas and American LNG, and the de-industrialisation now hollowing out Germany?

False historical narratives abound in our contentious and divided world, as leaders and complicit historians endeavor to use public understanding of the past to push policies and gain control in the present. One of the most egregious cases is the widely accepted account of the decision by U.S. leaders to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9 of 1945, respectively.

Just when sensible people might conclude that American or European members of Ukraine’s sycophantic fan club cannot become even more detached from reality, a prominent member of the club proves the opposite.  This time, it is conservative pundit David French, who wins the prize in his April 26, 2026, New York Times column, “Meet the New Leader of the Free World.”   That leader is Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

War hysteria in Germany has reached a new level. Even churches are now preparing to serve the warmongers uncritically.

U.S. President Donald Trump has been very publicly aggressive in expressing his anger at NATO. He told NATO members they will “have to start learning how to fight for yourself” because “the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us.” Asked if he would reconsider U.S. membership in NATO, Trump replied, “Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration.”