Liberal hawks like Michael McFaul, Max Boot and Anne Applebaum are quick to denounce Russian aggression but ignore Israeli crimes.
ACURA ZoomCast: Richard Sakwa on The Lost Peace
Professor Richard Sakwa joins ACURA’s David Speedie and James W. Carden for a conversation about his new book The Lost Peace: How The West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War.
Ed Lozansky: Who Lost the Peace Dividend After the End of the Cold War?
The end of the first Cold War in the late 80s gave Americans a unique historical chance to stop worrying about nuclear war and get a well-deserved Peace Dividend. Instead, not only they lost it, but the talk about the inevitable nuclear WWIII became a routine discussion subject in the government, public, and media circles.
PODCAST: Neutrality Studies: Dr. Edward Corse and Dr. Marta García Cabrera on Neutrality and Propaganda
A revealing discussion about the connection between neutral states and various forms of propaganda.
Eve Ottenberg: Did Britain just put Ukraine on a path to NATO?
So what does this bode for the war’s future? Nothing good.
Chas Freeman: The Domestic Consequences of America’s Many Wars in the Middle East (Oct. 2016)
The United States is today divided and lacking in agreed or feasible foreign policy goals, this too has a great deal to do with the cumulative burden of failed American policies in West Asia and North Africa. There is a long list of these, beginning with the total collapse of the five-decade-long American effort to broker security and acceptance for a Jewish settler state in Palestine. There is no longer a basis for such diplomacy, so there will no resumption of an American-led “peace process.” The United States remains at odds with Iran. It is now estranged from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states as well as Israel, Egypt and Turkey, none of which remain willing to follow an American lead. Saudi Arabia, like Israel, has broken ranks with us and – for some of the same reasons – is doing its own thing.
William Hartung: The world weeps while the military industrial complex keeps winning
In December, President Biden signed a record authorization of $886 billion in “national defense” spending for 2024, including funds for the Pentagon proper and work on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy. Add to that tens of billions of dollars more in likely emergency military aid for Ukraine and Israel, and such spending could well top $900 billion for the first time this year.
Meanwhile, the administration’s $100-billion-plus emergency military aid package that failed to pass Congress last month is likely to slip by in some form this year, while the House and Senate are almost guaranteed to add tens of billions more for “national defense” projects in specific states and districts, as happened in two of the last three years.
Jeremy Kuzmarov: Fake intellectuals working for Think Tanks funded by the Arms Industry are driving support for war after war after war
Since the commencement of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, The Atlantic Council has doubled down on its long-standing Russophobia, calling for bombing Russia and starting World War III.
Last February, Matthew Kroenig, the Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, argued for consideration of the U.S. preemptive use of ’tactical’ nuclear weapons. This would not only kill thousands of people directly but likely cause what scientists characterize as a “nuclear winter” by injecting so much smoke and debris into the air that it will block sunlight and cause a precipitous drop in global temperatures, affecting food production across the globe.
Remember When? New Revelations from the National Security Archive
The Clinton-Yeltsin Moscow Summit, January 1994
Jan 14, 1994
Source: U.S. Department of State, National Security Archive FOIA
Turning to the security agenda, Yeltsin tells Clinton that his information about arms sales to Iran is incorrect and asks him if sanctions on Iraq could be eased so that Russia could collect some of the debt that Iraq still owed it. Clinton noted that if Iraq was permitted to sell oil, the falling oil prices would harm Russian interests. Defense Minister Grachev talks about military-to-military relations, his recent meetings with U.S. Defense Secretary Les Aspin, and his first call on the Partnership for Peace hotline on January 5, 1995. He wants to meet with the new U.S. Defense Secretary as soon as possible (retired Admiral Bobby Inman had been nominated by Clinton to succeed Aspin but later withdrew) and to brief the Secretary General of NATO on the new Russian military doctrine. Grachev is very pleased with the close cooperation with the U.S. military and even invites Clinton and Yeltsin to personally observe a planned bilateral military exercise in July 1994.
One of most important issues for the U.S. team, according to the scene-setter, is the deployment of Russian peace-keeping forces in the near abroad. This issue is painful for Yeltsin, who is trying to be a force for good in the former Soviet space. The Russian president talks about Russia’s constructive actions in Moldova and Georgia and his desire to stop bloodshed. He says that “allegations of imperial aspirations are harming us and are not correct.”
Yeltsin wants to speak about his favorite subject—U.S.-Russian partnership, and Russia’s relationship with NATO. In his memoir, Kozyrev wrote that Yeltsin was shocked by Clinton’s “not whether but when” statement in Prague about future NATO expansion, and even felt betrayed by Clinton. Here, however, Yeltsin says to Clinton “we certainly agree with you on NATO” but also states that“Russia has to be the first country to join NATO,” followed by other states from Central and Eastern Europe. He even proposes “a kind of cartel of the U.S., Russia and Europeans to help to ensure and improve world security.” Clinton’s response is very careful, mentioning Russian’s sense of greatness but not engaging on the idea of a cartel or Russia’s membership in NATO.
The Russian president expresses his deep appreciation of Clinton: “You come to Russia not to confront us, but with the affection and love of our people and with a sense of support for Russia.” In response, Clinton talks about their “relationship of trust and confidence” and the unique chance it creates if Russia stays the course: “we could guarantee the countries of Europe a century of peace or more.” Such were the high hopes of the 1990s.
Meanwhile . . .
Talbott dismisses Kozyrev’s Peace Proposal 1994
Jan 12, 1994
Source: U.S. Department of State, National Security Archive FOIA
In this memo to the national security adviser on the eve of Clinton’s visit to Moscow, Talbott previews some of the most important issues the Russia side wants to raise during the summit—the future security arrangements in Europe. Talbott writes quite dismissively and negatively about a new European security initiative that Russian Foreign Minister Andrey Kozyrev presented in a German newspaper, which he called the “Partnership for United Europe.” The plan would subordinate NATO to the CSCE structures and strengthen the Russian role in building a new integrated Europe. Although the Clinton team stated publicly that a fully integrated Europe without new dividing lines was their goal, Talbott dismisses Kozyrev’s thoughts on Russian desire to “be the architect […] along with the U.S. of a completely new European security order,” saying that “it sticks in their craw that NATO appears poised to dictate the terms of the new order.”
Talbott’s early relationship with Kozyrev had been cordial and productive, but now his view of Kozyrev has changed completely. He sees the Russian foreign minister moving in a more nationalist direction partly as a result of the December elections and his own political interests. Talbott concludes that “Kozyrev has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution” and suspects that he was an unhelpful influence on Yeltsin during the last weeks of the trilateral process.
(h/t to Nicolai Petro for brining this to our attn.)
VIDEO: Dr. Wolfgang Streeck on risks of the Israeli Nuclear Triad
On clear and present danger of Israel’s nuclear weapons.
In this talk wit Pascal Lottaz, Professor Wolfgang Streeck explains how Israel’s nuclear triad is not only a threat to Arab and West Asian countries, but has political implications up to potential security threats to the West as well.
Nadezhda Azhgihina: This Russian Opposition Leader Met With Putin to Discuss a Cease-Fire to Stop the Killing
An interview with Russian opposition leader Grigory Yavlinsky.
Kadira Pethiyagoda: Interventionism’s Moral Narrative Has Crumbled
Ordinary people in the West can still remember when media commentators and politicians cheered on Ukrainian civilians throwing Molotov cocktails at their occupiers. They see statistics on social media that Israel had killed more Palestinians in one month than Russia had killed Ukrainians in 592 days of war. They haven’t forgotten that it was the very same establishment figures like Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) who claimed Russia bombs hospitals “daily,” now crying “I stand with Israel” every five minutes despite four times morecivilians having been killed in Gaza’s hospitals in two months than in Ukraine’s hospitals in two years.
Shelia Fitzpatrick: Bertie Wooster in Murmansk
A review of Anna Reid’s A Nasty Little War: The West’s Fight to Reverse the Russian Revolution.
Geoffrey Roberts: Ignorance is not Bliss: Ten Egregious Historical Mis-Analogies of the Russo-Ukrainian War
Completely reliant on foreign aid, battered Ukraine is half-way to becoming a Western protectorate not a Russian one.
Jeffrey Sachs: Why Joe Biden Is a Foreign Policy Failure
When it comes to foreign policy, the president of the United States has two essential roles. The first is to rein in the military-industrial complex, or MIC, which is always pushing for war. The second is to rein in U.S. allies that expect the U.S. to go to war on their behalf. A few savvy presidents succeed, but most fail. Joe Biden is certainly a failure.
Hall Gardner: The new Crimean war and global geopolitical unrest
Speaking to the American Congress, President Joe Biden warned, “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there… Putin will attack a NATO ally, and then “we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today: American troops fighting Russian troops…”
Biden’s scenario is not implausible, but it is not the most probable. It appears dubious that Russia’s President Putin will be able to “take” all of Ukraine and then purposely attack NATO members, although Moscow has intensified its attacks on Ukraine.
Dave DeCamp: Slovak Prime Minister Says Ukraine Must Give Up Territory to End War
Slovak PM Robert Fico will meet with Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal on Wednesday and said he will tell him that Slovakia will block any attempts to bring Ukraine into NATO. “I will tell him that I am against the membership of Ukraine in NATO and that I will veto it,” Fico said. “It would merely be a basis for World War III, nothing else.”