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

[Continue Reading]

Again Robert Parry, winner of the I.F.Stone Award from Harvard University in 2015 for the best investigative journalism America has to offer, asks the $64,000 question: Is a new McCarthy-ism returning to America’s politics?

If so, a number of very fine former US Ambassadors, Consul Generals, Congress members, CIA analysts, State Senators, educators, top business executives, and citizens at large, will be caught in their crosshairs.

Read below very carefully, Sharon

Consortiumnews.com
February 18,2017

Dear Friends,

Read below and ask yourself these questions: Does it benefit our country to deliberately be hostile to Russia whose nuclear weapons are as numerous as ours? Where is the logic in this direction? What will it accomplish? Is the end game to pursue this policy of hostility, surrounding Russia’s borders with missiles and troops (as it is now) until war is finally triggered? Do these senators believe that such a war would remain non-nuclear? Do they not remember the fates of Napoleon and Hitler who tried to conquer Russia? Have they not heeded Russia’s clear warnings? What is behind all of this?

Are the D.C. policy makers so fearful that they will lose power in a multi-polar world that they will risk the lives of all Americans to prevent this from happening? How far will they go with their “Full Spectrum Dominance” theories? Have they talked up their own propaganda until they believe it is true? Has the rubicon already been passed? Let us hope not!

What must we citizens do to demand a change in direction of both Republican and Democratic congress members who have the combined power to vote in these continuing insane pieces of legislation?

Send your ideas! We will work them into a medley of enlightened actions to inform American citizens of the risks and options we have to stop these nonsense pieces of legislation in their tracks. Friends, as Ed Snowden said two years ago, “There are more of us than there are of them!” Numbers count when people of conscience come together to act in their own interests.

This is not a partisan issue. For this grave issue, it doesn’t matter who you voted for.

If we don’t solve this ultimate issue, other important issues can be blown into oblivion in a 30-minute exchange of warheads.

At this juncture in our public lives, Americans of all persuasions must become conversant regarding (a) the history and relationship between Russia and America, (b) problems in our present-day democracy and (c)–if we survive this period–what kind of nation we want to build in the future.

Share this message with your friends, family, business colleagues and our youth.

Antiwar.com
February 9, 2017

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Agrees to Be Hostile Toward Russia

Bipartisan Consensus on New Sanctions, Need for New Hearings

There is a lot of political rancor in the Senate these days, but the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has found something everybody can get behind: a general anti-Russian sentiment, and the intention to take some more actions against the Russian government.

[Continue Reading]

Dear Friends,

The Chinese billionaire tells it like he sees it at the World Economic Forum. Don’t miss –– we should take notice.  Others don’t see us as we see ourselves.

Sharon

Russia Today

Nobody ‘stealing’ your jobs, you spend too much on wars, Alibaba founder tells US

Published time: 20 Jan, 2017 01:20 Edited time: 20 Jan, 2017 16:31

Friends, a second article by Nicolai Petro, Russian/Ukrainian PhD at the University of Rhode Island, who has been deeply involved with US-Russia relations for decades. He usually takes a middle of the road approach, but herein he takes the opportunity to assess what has failed and what Trump could do differently, if so inclined.

Following this article, you will next receive an update on the latest blaze of activity charted by CCI.

So keep reading!   Sharon

ACADEMIA
(prepared for Russia Direct Report, “The New Face of America,” vol. 4, 2016).  http://bit.ly/2gJhA9B

From Obama to Trump: Cold War Averted. What Now?

By Nicolai N. Petro [1]

The Trump administration has a unique opportunity to change the American foreign policy debate about Russia and move beyond the outdated policy of containment.

Obama’s foreign policy legacy is marred by the failure to improve relations with Russia. This failure is due primarily to his administration’s inability to envision Russia as anything but an obstacle to U.S. interests. Time and again, at key junctures, his administration failed to provide innovative leadership that might have moved Americans beyond the assumptions of the Cold War, and instead fell back on conventional stereotypes about Russia.

Why the Reset Failed

The “reset” serves as a model for the failure of the entire Russian-American relationship. From its inception the Reset rested on the flawed assumption that there was a rift between the values of the Kremlin and the Russian people that West could exploit. Its object was not to engage Russian officials in an open dialogue about values but instead, as the policy’s chief architect Michael McFaul explained, “to establish a direct relationship with the Russian people” over the Kremlin’s head. [2] As a result a golden opportunity to change the tenor of Russian-American relations by engaging in a real dialogue was lost.

[Continue Reading]