Friends, finally The New York Times prints an OpEd that makes sense of the US-Russia standoff. Anatol Lieven, who I’ve known for over two decades, is a relatively young and seasoned international analyst who is not often printed in U.S. mainstream media. I agree with 95% of this article, but disagree that Russia is just a “regional power” in that Russia’s nuclear weaponry alone provides evidence that they are an international power to be reckoned with. Secondly, Russia has no interest in taking in more land such as the small Baltic nations, or promoting a bi-polar world or challenging America’s place in the world. Russia does openly promote a “multi-polar world,” which makes sense to many Americans. Thirdly, Lieven says the annexation of Crimea should be accepted, but shouldn’t be legalized (Kosovo is still not legal). However, very different situations exist in the histories of these two entities, and it would be appropriate to legalize the return of Crimea to Russia. Anatol’s major points below are right on. Sharon
PS: I reiterate … I did not vote for Trump, I voted for Jill Stein.
FYI: Bolding by ST
The New York Times
February 14, 2017
DOHA, Qatar — Few of the Trump administration’s priorities have received as much criticism from the American foreign policy establishment as the president’s desire to improve relations with Russia. President Trump’s allegedly pro-Russian policies have been the subject of conspiracy theories and scandal.
This makes little sense. There are many good reasons for the United States to reach conciliation with Moscow on issues from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. The real question will be if Washington can control its own desire for global hegemony enough to make that possible.
