American Committee for US-Russia Accord

We can turn back to Yugoslavia to find the roots of Putin’s loathing toward Clinton and her ideology. It was during NATO’s 1999 air campaign over Kosovo that then-President Bill Clinton helped to inaugurate the current era of militant humanitarianism (that is, humanitarian intervention at the point of a gun).

In the geopolitical arena, do the ends always justify the means? Is it wise to inflict damage on yourself and your institutions to hobble an enemy? The relationship between the West and Russia over the last few years offers an illustrative case.

In an interview this week with the Huffington Post, ACEWA Founding Board Member Stephen F. Cohen discusses the crisis in US-Russan relations and the ongoing Ukraine crisis with author Dan Kovalik. Among other observations, Professor Cohen comments that “Ukraine had been on Washington’s agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. … But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the “anti-terrorist operation,” with Washington’s blessing. …”

…details are spilling out, and they are not bolstering the intelligence community’s conclusion. Indeed, the most recent revelation suggests they don’t understand who has influence in Moscow.

Washington’s legion of escalation argues for “raising the costs” to Russia by increasing the number of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine…This rationale is logical on its face, but in practice does not account for the gap between the Russian and American stake in Ukraine. Kiev’s geopolitical orientation is supremely important to Russia, while American interests’ via-a-vis Ukraine are peripheral at best. It’s a case of “must have” for the Russians, versus “nice to have” for the United States.

Given Trump’s clear impulsivity and belligerent tendencies, the last thing Democrats ought to be doing is incentivizing him to take a needlessly hostile stance toward Putin – or any other world leader, for that matter.

Mr. Schiff and Mr. Page are fitting sharers of the stage in this episode, with a certain indefinable insubstantiality in common.

President Trump has flip-flopped many times during his first months in office. But none may be as consequential as his decision on April 18 to certify that Iran is abiding by the nuclear deal of 2015, paving the way for further waiving of sanctions.

As we all know, it is hard for an individual or nation to view the world or a particular situation through the eyes of another person or nation. I have never seen this more true than what is transpiring now over the Ukrainian crisis as it is viewed by the United States and Russia.

This is a subject of deep concern because the security of our world is threatened and we risk losing the need for collaboration on such transcendent issues as nuclear proliferation and terrorism in Iran and Syria. [Read more…] about ACEWA Founding Board Member John E. Pepper on the US, Russia and Ukraine: The Danger Escalates

Nation Contributing Editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. Cohen recalls that in 2014, when the Ukrainian crisis erupted, he warned that the new Cold War might be more dangerous than was its 40-year predecessor for several reasons. The political epicenter of this Cold War was on Russia’s borders, first in Ukraine, then in the Baltic region, whereas previously it had been in far-away Berlin.

The ultimate madness of today’s U.S. foreign policy is Official Washington’s eager embrace of a new Cold War against Russia with the potential for nuclear annihilation. A rational strategy would seek alternatives to this return to big-power confrontation, writes ex-U.S. diplomat William R. Polk.

It looks as if the relentless Democratic strategy of pinning Trump to Russia has turned back to plague its inventors.

No-one should question the brutality of the Assad regime. Nor its torture. Nor its history of massive oppression. Yet there are, in fact, some grave doubts about Bashar’s responsibility for the 4 April attack – which he has predictably denied – even among Arabs who loath his Baathist regime and all it stands for.