American Committee for US-Russia Accord

Following Hillary Clinton’s defeat, her advisors met to discuss how to react to their electoral disaster, and that they decided that the best option was to blame it on the Russians. Again, I can’t fathom why, except perhaps that it a) had now became a matter of faith, and b) it excused them from having to examine their own failings.

Consider the story of Trump’s revelation of classified information to Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador to the United States. No one disputes the president’s right to declassify governmental information at will, but was it wise in this instance? Certainly, it was reckless if he exposed sources and methods of intelligence gathering. But did he?

Political commentators regularly line up to tell us ‘What Putin wants’.  In the early years of Putin’s rule, analysts tended to the view that Putin was non-ideological, and that he was above all a pragmatist, perhaps even an opportunist. More recently, though, there has been a tendency to regard the Russian president as having become more conservative in his outlook. Yet, despite this, there have been very few serious efforts to attempt to understand his beliefs.

Prof. Stephen F. Cohen says President Trump is being accused of treason and there’s no evidence of this and it has become a threat to US national security.

For the exhortations from the political class on behalf of import substitution to work, there had to be a radical change in consumer perception of domestically produced foodstuffs. My overriding conclusion from visits to retailers and seeing how goods are promoted is that ‘Buy Russian’ is working because it corresponds to the new patriotic mood.

The idea that these leaks to the Washington Post by “current and former U.S. officials” are in the service of US national security interests strains credulity. They manifestly are not.

During the 2016 presidential election cycle, there was a largely partisan effort to portray Donald Trump and his advisors as being under undue Russian influence. Now that campaign has turned into something much broader, uglier, and more dangerous.

Establishment voices are escalating their calls for President Trump’s impeachment, even without any public evidence that his campaign colluded with Russia, reports Robert Parry.

Russian ‘information warfare’ is back in the headlines today, with Postmedia publishing a typically over-the-top piece by Matthew Fisher entitled ‘Russia sharpens information weapon’. What prompts this story?

With all the controversy surrounding the recently negotiated Iran nuclear deal, speculation has run rampant about the future of the U.S. relationship with Iran. For all the talk of potential long-term détente between the United States and the Islamic Republic, however, commentators have largely ignored a more immediate diplomatic opening: namely, with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

When Trump tweeted last week that Russians must be “laughing up their sleeves” at the United States, he wasn’t wrong, exactly — though the target of Russian laughter might not be quite what the U.S. president thinks

A group of Americans visiting Russia heard dire warnings from ex-Soviet President Gorbachev that the tensions between the U.S. and Russia are creating a dangerous situation for the world, reports Rick Sterling, who is on the trip.

In extended interviews, two former U.S. intelligence chiefs have provided dramatically different assessments of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath.

“Although the discussion is about ‘defensive’ lethal weapons,” writes Dr. Andrew Monaghan of the UK think tank Chatham House, ” there is no guarantee that the weapons will be used only for defensive purposes if push comes to shove. If the Minsk agreement holds, then Kyiv will not need the weapons. But if it collapses, they may be pressed into service as Kyiv seeks to fulfil its stated aim to regain control over Donetsk and Lugansk (and even Crimea), starting a bigger conflict with Russia.”