American Committee for US-Russia Accord

This article first appeared as part of the Bow Group’s research paper titled “The Sanctions on Russia.”

Britain’s foremost expert on Russian and European politics, Professor Richard Sakwa, has precisely articulated why all attempts to resolve the crisis in Ukraine have ended in failure:

“The Ukraine conflict is the child of the cold peace. Although there are profound internal contradictions in the Ukrainian model of state development, these would not have assumed such disastrous forms if the geopolitics of post–Cold War Europe had been sorted out earlier.”

Jump into your time machine and let me transport you back to another age.

It’s May 2001 and the Atlantic Monthly has just arrived in the mail.  I’m tantalized by the cover article.  “Russia is finished,” the magazine announces.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sat down with The National Interest magazine for a wide ranging interview in July. Kissinger notes that, with regard to the Ukraine crisis “One has to analyze how the Ukraine crisis occurred. It is not conceivable that Putin spends sixty billion euros on turning a summer resort into a winter Olympic village in order to start a military crisis the week after a concluding ceremony that depicted Russia as a part of Western civilization.”

An NSA document purporting to show Russian military hacker attempts to access a Florida company which makes voter registration software is sent anonymously to The Intercept. A low-level NSA contractor, Reality Winner, is arrested almost immediately. What’s wrong with this picture? A lot.

Professor Paul Robinson takes a look at a new report by the British think tank, The Bow Group, which notes that “Given that many people in Ukraine actually consider themselves to be Russian, and that the justifications for sanctions may have shifted, it appears necessary to revise our approach to what could be considered one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century.”

Video footage of last weekend’s so-called Rally for Truth in Washington, DC.

At the “March for Truth” in Los Angeles, which I attended, the main theme was that Trump had committed treason; Soviet-era and homophobic iconography was appropriated to portray Trump as a “puppet” who has sold out the American people on behalf of his Russian benefactors.

The Democrats’ demagogic use of Russia-gate to “resist” President Trump is putting progressives in league with warmongers and war contractors while postponing a serious assessment of the party’s political problems, warns Norman Solomon.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), pressed twice by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer for evidence, said she still has seen none that would show collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In the increasingly frigid environment of U.S.-Russia relations, much attention is given to what may be seen as Russia’s strategic “interests.” (Of course, much of the policymaking class in the West seems to suggest that Russia is entitled to no “interests” whatsoever.) Of at least equal significance for understanding Russian attitudes, however, is a grasp of the values, the moral framework for Russia’s foreign policy.

Russia has succeeded, at a cost acceptable to it, in achieving its objectives of shoring up its only client regime in the Middle East, securing its modest naval and air presence in the country, and demonstrating that it still is a player to be reckoned with in that part of the world.

The Aug. 9 editorial “An untenable position” recommended Kiev continue isolating the rebel-controlled provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine. The majority of those left inside the blockade are the old, the infirm and the financially destitute — the ones who can’t leave.

These people are not terrorists or Russian collaborators

Jared Kushner is not the first member of a presidential family to try to open a back channel with the Kremlin. John F. Kennedy’s brother Robert met secretly with a Soviet intelligence agent named Georgi Bolshakov many times during the Kennedy administration. Their dealings illustrate the shortcomings and dangers of informal high-level diplomacy — but also the potential for breakthrough in a crisis.

Major U.S. media outlets insinuate that President Trump’s advisers are traitors for secretly talking to Russians, but they ignore the history of Henry Kissinger doing the same thing for Richard Nixon, writes Gareth Porter.