Russia: Other Points of View

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

PARIS. The usual "solidarity" theatre. None of this means a thing and won't until we start to hear about the role of Wahhabism in all this, where it comes from and who spreads it; Daesh's Turkey supply route; that Washington and its allies cannot support jihadists in one place and expect to control them in another; that US neocons and "humanitarian interventionists" have produced a catastrophe; that Assad is an ally; that Iran is an ally; that Putin is not only an ally but knows what to do; that NATO is wasting its time "protecting" the Baltics from Russia and should either start really dealing with its members' security or give up. That will require an unprecedented amount of truth-telling. Danielle Ryan speculates on changes in the spin machine.

BUT MAYBE WE ARE HEARING... The CIA man who helped start it all reflects that Western intervention made it worse. A retired British general dares to say "Wahhabi". A former CIA deputy director thinks it's time to team up with Assad. Even the WaPo starts to get it – US-supplied missile destroys a US-supplied Humvee. Meanwhile, Russia's initiative gains support in Vienna.

PUTIN (ONCE AGAIN) EXPLAINS HIS POSITION. Take seven minutes and watch this video from about a year ago. And ask yourself: does this sound right or wrong? If you think it wrong, see Joe Biden agree with him: "[Our allies] poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world." (Text)

SYRIA. Obviously much is happening and the situation is very fluid. Russia stepped up operations against Daesh (the airliner was brought down by a bomb), targeting the oil business – videos of hits on storage tanks and trucks. Oil is a major source of Daesh funds; the US claims at last to be targeting it. (How could it not have seen those lines of trucks? But the US effort had been rather half-hearted.) Long-range aviation seems to be hitting infrastructure while (more) aircraft based in Syria concentrate on close air support to the Syrian Army (progressing). The big question is this: it is clear to the objective viewer that Russia is leading the attack; will Paris sign up with Moscow? Ideas that France "lead" the attacks are absurd: only Russia and the USA have "full service" militaries. Hollande is close to it: "In the next few days, I will therefore meet with President Obama and President Putin to unite our forces and to achieve a result which, at this point, has been put off for far too long." There's an opportunity because France is sending its carrier to the Med and Putin told the Navy to coordinate efforts with it. The two military heads have talked. Gilbert Doctorow, an astute observer, expects cooperation – there's huge popular support in France for it. Obama himself has taken a baby step towards the Putin position which was, again, upheld at Vienna. In short, Assad is not the problem, Daesh is. Even – even! – Clinton gets it.

REFUGEES. Syria's UN Ambassador says about a million refugees have returned since the Russian strikes, and associated Syrian army victories, began. A million? Well, anyway, it's clear that the solution to the European refugee/migrant problem is make the countries they came from worth living in again. More truth-telling will be required here: as I said before, the refugees come from places NATO "saved".

MESSING WITH THEIR MINDS. Russian TV "accidentally" showed a frightening Russian weapon. Or maybe it's just a piece of paper. The US will probably wind up spending billions and billions.

ECONOMY. More evidence that the Russian economy is turning around from Bloomberg.

ISOLATED PUTIN. The RI Humour Editor permits herself a small smile. Reality and polite diplomacy proves a powerful combination against fantasy and bluster.

SPORTS DOPING. Yes, no, maybe. But I am always suspicious when another anti-Russia campaign starts.

WHO'S IN CHARGE? 50 analysts from the US Defense Intelligence Agency have claimed their reports were manipulated to give "a more positive picture to the White House". The former DIA head says warnings were ignored. "Shellback" argues that the US int establishment does not support what the US Administration is doing. Are these catastrophes the work of amateurs and ignoramuses?

MH17. Remember that? Some Dutch media companies are suing the government to try and get more information. (In Dutch). By the way, US satellites detected the explosion of the Russian airliner, so what did they see with MH17 and why are we still not told what it was? You know why.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Ottawa, Canada Websites: ROPV, US-Russia, Russia Insider

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

TIME FOR A RE-THINK, ACROSS THE BOARD, DON'T YOU AGREE? Ukraine hasn't turned out well for anybody, has it? Libya hasn't either. The longest war gets longer. More war in Iraq. Do all the refugees come from places where NATO has been active; or just almost all of them? The West greatly underestimated Russia's military power. (I remember writing briefing notes in the 1990s warning that while it might seem to be a lot of fun to kick Russia around when it was weak, it wouldn't always be weak.) Former US defense secretary says the US training program in Syria was "nuts". European Commission chief says "we can't let our relationship with Russia be dictated by Washington". Taliban surprises the Americans; Russia surprises the Americans. Washington hopes Iraq will not sign on to the Russian effort; too late. "Another A2/AD bubble". Intelligence agencies rebel. The war party's response? "get tough on Putin". Time to man up and admit that it's not weakness, it's policy: everything the West/NATO/USA has done in the last decade has made things worse.

BUSY. If you look at his schedule, you can see that Putin is constantly meeting with people in and around Syria. There was a lot of preparation. Indeed, it seems that only Washington was kept out of the loop.

OIL AND GAS. Russia reports enormous finds in the Arctic.

BRIDGE TO CRIMEA. Moving along smartly. Video of the first section.

CRUISE MISSILES. In the INF Treaty the USA insisted that sea-launched cruise missiles (of which it had a monopoly) be excluded. Monopoly no more. Here's a perceptive article on the Russian system and a video of an imaginative deployment in shipping containers; note the slogan at the end "Every state has the right to independence". The US carrier battle group left the Gulf which may or may not be related to learning that it was in range of some insignificant ship in the Caspian Sea. Of all places.

WESTERN VALUES™. Should US military personnel be found responsible for the Kunduz hospital attack, "it's a safe bet" that there will be no involvement of the ICC. On the other hand, Washington supports an effort to have Syria be indicted by the ICC. And, now, the Drone Papers.

MH17 REPORT. Not impressed. My principal observation: DSB's direction of attack only possible if damage to port wing and engine ignored – as it was. Note the missing radar data from Ukraine and NATO. Identification of Buk depends on three or four particles. I call it a "limited hangout".

GHOUTA CW ATTACK. Two Turkish parliamentarians come within an ace of saying that the sarin gas came from Turkey as part of a "false flag" operation. Will your local media outlet report this?

UKRAINE. I have always thought that what Moscow wants from Ukraine can be simply expressed: a country that pays its gas bills on time, is not a NATO launch pad and doesn't have a crisis every five years that keeps everybody in Moscow up all night. In short, prosperous, neutral, stable. I agree (as I usually do) with Alexander Mercouris's argument expressed here that it's moved a lot closer to that end. The latest "Normandy format" talks have hammered some points home that were always in the Minsk agreement but Kiev had ignored; it appears Paris and Berlin have woken up to their dilemma. Kiev must talk to Donetsk to work out some real autonomy and it has to rein in the quasi-independent militia groups. More attacks are just more defeats. Time has been bought: I believe that Putin & Co understand – or hope, at least – that Ukrainians are not really represented by the corrupt plutocrats and nazi freaks now running the place and is playing for time: sooner or later the junta will go and then Moscow will be closer to the Ukraine it wants. Which is, of course the Ukraine that rational people in Europe should also want. (There are already a couple of million Ukrainian refugees in Russia, what happens if hundreds of thousands want to get into Europe?) A recent Ukrainian poll shows slightly more people want to begin big protests than did in 2013. Meanwhile, we learn that Kiev is starting an investigation into "the Heavenly Hundred". Gordon Hahn speculates on why Kiev would be entertaining the possibility that the killings were done by the "Maidan defenders" and not – as legend says – by Yanukovych. 16,000 deserters out there, many with weapons. Worse to come, I fear.

MISTRALS. Russia is "satisfied". Egypt (Egypt? What's it need an expeditionary force for?) will be buying them. Hollande hopes to sell more ships to Russia. What do you bet that, after a decent interval, Egypt sells them to Russia? If so, Poland and the Baltics will have apoplexy.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Ottawa, Canada Websites: ROPV, US-Russia, Russia Insider

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

10 DAYS THAT CHANGED THE WORLD. They did, don't you think? Gilbert Doctorow describes the interlocking parts of Moscow's actions: coalition assembled, the UNGA, the military moves, the demonstration that Russia has full-capacity armed forces, Ukraine.

SYRIA. Clearly the big story.Others have commented: I recommend Dyer, Escobar and Buchanan. But there are plenty more. All I have to add are a few observations. Re the "Russian invasion" of Ukraine and grainy photos of combine harvesters or whatever somewhere or other, this is what real satellite photos look like: colour, detail, precision. Russia's intervention has exploded the US fantasy of "moderate opposition" (but weren't there only four or five of them?) and its incoherent two-horse scheme (watch McCain lump "barrel bombs" and beheaders together as if Assad and ISIS were the same at 6:51). As to Russia being "doomed to fail", its strikes are coordinated with the forces on the ground that are actually fighting ISIS; Syrian forces have begun an offensive. And with Iraq too. Egypt as well. Israel even? Is Iran coming? There are suggestions that both Iraq and Afghanistan would welcome Russian assistance because ISIS has only grown stronger in the year of the US-led operation, despite its claims. Moscow prepared the ground, did everything legally, assembled a coalition and moved quickly and decisively. Not Putin vs Obama, or "standing up to Putin", but a direct challenge to the New American Century crowd; "the most powerful, good and honorable nation... the exceptional nation": "Do you at least realise now what you have done?" (Вы хоть понимаете теперь, что вы натворили?).

WESTERN VALUES™. No sooner had the US and its allies complained about "civilian casualties" (on faked evidence) than US forces struck a hospital in Afghanistan. The American story is now in its fourth iteration but still no response to the three main charges – that they knew where the hospital was, that there was no firing from it, that the hospital was repeatedly struck after MSF had called on the US authorities to stop. Meanwhile, on Russia's "violation of Turkish airspace", look at this screen from a Western source: the green are NATO aircraft in Syria. Whose violations there? Turkey has been violating Syria airspace for some time. And here's a Deutsche Wellereport on the ISIS supply route from Turkey.

PAST AND PRESENT. Wikileaks tells us that Qadaffi was willing to talk but Clinton was not willing to listen. The former Defense Intelligence Agency head says the Administration made a "wilful decision" to ignore its warnings about the growth of ISIS; nor does he believe the "moderate opposition" exists.

INTENTIONS. Don't know what Russia's intentions are? Stop speculating and read Putin's speech. A clue: "we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world" (что терпеть складывающееся в мире положение уже невозможно). He's been saying this since the famous Munich speech and now he's found a time and place to act. He seems to have a lot of support in the West, too – see below. Read Xi's speech as well, not as blunt, but the same message.

THE WORM TURNS. Read the comments on this story, this story, this story and this story. The first two condemn Russia's actions, the second two approve. But, in all cases the readers' comments are overwhelmingly supportive of Russia's attacks. I have suspected for a while – why else all the talk about "Putin trolls", Putin's "information war" and the closing of comments sections? – that an increasing proportion of the Western audience sees through the spin and propaganda. Syria may burst the dam. The last words go to Paul Craig Roberts: "By telling the truth at a time of universal deceit, Putin committed a revolutionary act".

RT. Remember when RT was "Putin's weapon of mass deception" and a challenge that had to be countered? Well now it fakes its numbers and is insignificant. Hard to keep up with the story, isn't it?

RUSSIA INC. I highly recommend this from the perceptive Mr Mercouris on how Russian economy measurements miss something important. While the USA undeniably leads his super trio, how much longer can it with so much of its manufacturing out-sourced?

CORRUPTION. Is a big problem in Russia and no one hides it. I've said before that I'll believe a serious anti-corruption effort is really happening when someone in an office next to Putin's or Medvedev's is taken away. It almost happened with Serdyukov but he seems to have got away with it. Ditto the Luzhkovs. Well, maybe something more significant than busting traffic cops is beginning. We'll see.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Ottawa, Canada Websites: ROPV, US-Russia, Russia Insider

-- 

Patrick Armstrong

CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS IN REVERSE?

Cuban Missile Crisis in Reverse?

by Craig K. Comstock

published by OpEdNews on August 20, 2015

          Whatever one thinks of Putin, it's fair to ask whether the US is on the path to risking a Cuban missile crisis in reverse. What if Ukraine invites NATO to station nuclear missiles on its territory or conduct "war games" near the Russian heartland or engage in other military activities? Didn't the very long and extensive US involvement in Vietnam start with "trainers"? 

What is now the country of Ukraine was once a province of the USSR. And some parts of Ukraine are closer to Moscow than Cuba to Washington, D.C. When Khrushchev shipped nuclear rockets to Castro's island, and they were discovered by a US surveillance plane, it set off a crisis that has been called the most dangerous time in human history. 

During the famous crisis, JFK and his "executive committee" knew that Soviet strategic rockets were emplaced in Cuba and potentially armed with nuclear warheads. What they apparently didn't know was that the Soviets had also sent tactical nuclear warheads to Cuba to combat a possible U.S. invasion of that island. 

Soft Power: Russian Foreign Policy

Friends, increasingly American experts like Carnegie's David Speedie are speaking out in more moderate voices regarding Russia's behaviors and intentions on the international scene -- this is welcome relief after the heyday of half truths, groundless accusations and ill will generated recently by American mainstream media. May their numbers multiply.  I can certainly verify that one gets this sense from Russian people throughout the regions we visited in June. They were amazingly non-hostile when discussing US-Russia relations given that their purchasing power has been halved by the sanctions. They have a growing sense of themselves, their history and culture …. and Russia's ability to survive and eventually thrive within a milieu of classical norms.  Sharon 

 

"Soft Power": The Values that Shape Russian Foreign Policy

DAVID C. SPEEDIE  |  U.S. Global Engagement  |  JULY 30, 2015

This article is in anticipation of an upcoming Carnegie Council project on Russian "soft power" and values that shape foreign policy.

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.

A valuable resource for this understanding is found in a recent article, "Russia's Orthodox Soft Power," by the University of Rhode Island scholar Nicolai Petro, who explores the "symphonic relationship" between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state and the manner in which they both utilize the term Russky mir, or Russian World. For the discussion herein of what this entails, we are indebted to Professor Petro.

As Petro observes, the term Russky mir has been wrongly interpreted by some Western analysts as the "perverse intersection" between the Russian state and the Russian Orthodox Church; in reality, the term is employed differently by each party. Where the state uses it as a tool for expanding Russia's cultural and political influence, the Church views it as a spiritual concept linked to God's objective for the rebuilding of a Holy Rus. The relationship between the two provides a popular and definable framework for Russian foreign policy. Values play a significant role in policy formulation and, throughout modern history, three constants dictate how Russia responds to Western actions: sovereignty, capability to defend that sovereignty, and loyalty to those who share Russia's sense of honor. (The 2014 conflict Ukraine exacerbated the perceived values gap between the West and Russia, yet Russia claims it occupies the higher moral ground by defending its core values of honor in the context of the unique historical, religious, and cultural bonds with Ukraine.)

In summary: The significance of religion in Russian life allows the state to garner huge social capital from having the blessing of the Orthodox Church, and likewise the Church benefits from the relationship by disseminating its message of Christianity worldwide via Russian foreign policy. For the state, Russky Mir is a political/cultural tool for strengthening domestic stability, worldwide status, and influence in neighboring states. For the Church, it is a religious foundation essential for reversing the secularization of society (which it sees as an unwelcome evolution already well underway in the West).

KERRY'S NEXT CHALLENGE

By Katrina vanden Heuvel July 21 

The nuclear agreement with Iran provides ample proof of Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s remarkable commitment and skill in waging diplomacy. In an era when the Pentagon dominates our foreign policy and military options are too often trotted out as first responses, he has resuscitated the United States’ power to lead, pressure and negotiate, a capacity too often denigrated as “soft power.”

No good deed goes unpunished. His reward for this is not only a pitched battle at home with hawks in both parties intent on torpedoing the Iran deal, but also what will be an even fiercer struggle with higher stakes: fending off those intent on escalating a face-off with Russia over Ukraine into a new Cold War. Once more, Kerry must preserve our real security interests from those recklessly brandishing America’s military prowess. 

The voices calling for a new Cold War — or worse — with Russia are growing louder. “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia,” said Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., at Senate hearings on his nomination to be the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dunford listed Russia as “the greatest threat” to U.S. national security, which will surely startle those old enough to remember 9/11. Even as the United States announced that it was considering training Ukraine’s regular forces, Dunford recommended shipping U.S. weapons to the Kiev regime, another step toward a proxy war with Russia that President Obama has thus far resisted.

Russia, the Greatest Strategic Threat to America!

Friends, I assume you have registered the stampede to see which of Washington's top brass (NATO Chief Breedlove, Defense Secy.Ashton Carter, Commander of European Forces General Hodges, and of course Victoria Nuland piping up again along with McCain and others) can out-do each other's declaration "Russia being the greatest strategic threat to America!" 

Amazing, it sounds like the order from someone has gone out: "It's time to all repeat this slogan again and again until all of America gets it!"   Even Kerry seems disinterested.

Sharon

~~~~~~~~~~

The Nation

July 14, 2015

Is Russia Really 'the Greatest Threat' to US National Security?

Ashton Carter, Victoria Nuland, and Gen. Joseph Dunford want us to think so.

By James Carden 

James W. Carden is a contributing writer at The Nation and the executive editor for the American Committee for East-West Accord's EastWestAccord.com. 

The war party is growing restive.

Reports of a deadly shootout between neofascist Right Sector volunteers and Ukrainian police in government-controlled western Ukraine was quickly followed by news that the international community reached a historic deal with Iran over its nuclear program.

As news of these developments began to ricochet through the corridors of Capitol Hill, the frustration and alarm of some of the leading members of Washington's war party increased markedly.

With legions of allies in the Congress, in the administration, and in the military, the faction led by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Philip Breedlove has, to date, successfully pushed the president towards taking a more hawkish line towards Russia, with NATO stationing, for the first time, tanks, troops and ordnance on Russia's western frontier. In addition, on Monday, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of US Army forces in Europe, told reporters at the Pentagon that he is planning to train Ukrainian army troops beginning in November. This would come on the heels of the US Army's current program of training Ukrainian Interior Ministry forces.

The hysteria over Russia's alleged provocations in Ukraine has reached such a point that at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week, President Obama's nominee to succeed Gen. Martin Dempsey as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, testified that he believed Russia posed "the greatest threat" to US national security. The hearing, chaired by none other than Senator John McCain, was less a confirmation hearing than a forum for the War Party to vent its copious frustrations with what it sees as President Obama's dangerously naive foreign policy.

NEOCONS setting policy for Obama

Friends, investigative journalist, Robert Parry,  who brought the Iran-Contra Scandal to light, is the chief U.S. journalist forcing truth in the public forum re the Washington/Ukraine/Crimea/Russia domain.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/10/obamas-deadly-cold-war-legacy/ 

Exclusive: President Obama is endangering his legacy by letting neoconservatives still set his foreign policy, including the creation of a new and costly Cold War with Russia that could have been easily avoided and that now risks spinning off into a nuclear showdown, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Whatever positive legacy that President Barack Obama might point to – the first African-American president, the Affordable Care Act, the changed social attitudes on gay rights, etc. – his ultimate legacy may be defined more by his reckless stewardship guiding the United States into a wholly unnecessary new Cold War.

The costs of this Cold War II will be vast, emptying out what’s left of the U.S. Treasury in a new arms race against Russia, assuming that the new East-West showdown doesn’t precipitate a nuclear war that could end all life on the planet. Already, the United States military has altered its national security policies to treat Russia as the principal foreign threat. 

President Barack Obama and President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

“If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia,” said General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., at Senate hearings on his nomination to be the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “And if you look at their [the Russians’] behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

Stephen Cohen's Latest: Huffington Post

Huffington Post

July 7, 2015

Rethinking Russia: A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen

By Dan Kovalik

Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord, a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.

Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:

Even Henry Kissinger -- I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post -- wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

U.S., RUSSIA AND UKRAINE – “TIT FOR TAT” – DUELING “EXPERTS” AND DUELING NARRATIVES – THE DANGER ESCALATES

Dear Friends,

The article below was written by John E. Pepper, Jr., who for 40 years was in management at Procter & Gamble, and in year 2000 was made CEO and Chair of the Executive Committee of the Board at P&G.  He also has served as Vice President of Finance and Administration at Yale University and has been a director of The Walt Disney Company since 2006. He was responsible for P&G's successful move to Russia.

During the 2000s, John also Chaired the Board for the St. Petersburg State University's new Graduate School of Management which partnered with Berkeley University.  I sat on that Board, and CCI oversaw the funds contributed to and paid out for the renovation of two palaces for the new School of Management. John has a deep appreciation for Russia's history, culture and literature, and he has had long experience dealing with numerous Russians in high places over the years.  He, like many of us, has deep concerns about today's relationship between the two countries.

Sharon

 

June 24, 2015

U.S., RUSSIA AND UKRAINE – “TIT FOR TAT” – 

DUELING “EXPERTS” AND DUELING NARRATIVES – THE DANGER ESCALATES

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.

I could only look with irony at the statement of Defense Secretary Ash Carter as reported in the Wall Street Journal last week that the Pentagon is committing military gear to a NATO task force designed to deter Russian aggression because Moscow is, in Carter’s words, trying to “reestablish a Soviet-era sphere of influence.” 

How precisely that echoes Russia’s concerns—that the West, and particularly the United States, has, over the past 20 years, extended its “sphere of influence” by extending NATO well beyond what was expected in the early 1990s, even to the point of considering expansion to Ukraine and Georgia.  

There is a great danger in the affairs of humans and also of nations in self-fulfilling expectations.  These self-fulfilling expectations can be for the better and they can be for the worse.  The expectations held by Russia toward the United States and the United States toward Russia today are all “for the worse.”

We hear veiled and sometimes bald assertions that Russia intends to enter countries previously part of the Soviet empire--the Baltics, Poland and all of Ukraine.  Putin described such a nation as “insane.”   He is right.  Can you imagine the sheer idiocy of Russia undertaking to move into those countries?  Why would they do this?  There is no driving ideology as there might have been in the case of Soviet Communism.  Surely, Russia has no need for more land.  

Russia, quite understandably, looks for long-term economic and social ties with Ukraine.  But to try to take over a country where the majority of people would be repelled by being part of Russia makes no sense.  It would make Russia the pariah of the world and give them nothing in return but trouble. 

We are failing to seriously examine what is the true strategic intent of Russia.  I am not suggesting that they haven’t supported the Separatists in Eastern Ukraine; I feel quite sure they have, probably to help ensure that a constitutional settlement is finally reached that gives appropriate rights to the ethnic Russians living there. 

The interests of the United States and Russia should be very simple and the same.  We should support what has been so long coming--the creation of a unified Ukraine, with federalization much as it exists in other countries.  Pulling Ukraine together is a huge challenge.  The fissure between Eastern Ukraine and the rest of the country is large, ethnically based and now deepened by a civil war. 

Russia, the United States, all of us, should do everything we can to support this constitutional settlement.  We should not allow anything in our control to get in the way of that settlement, for nothing other than that will bring peace to the Ukrainian people.  And that’s what they want.  That’s what the people in every country want.

I fear that most people are so far removed from the horror of war today that we have forgotten what it’s like.  It might serve everyone to go back and look at the movie “Platoon” or “Saving Private Ryan” again to be reminded what the cost of war is to human life.  

I believe we are at a historical precipice.  I am extremely worried by the unfettered “propaganda,” and that’s what it is, on both sides of the issue.  This has had the insidious effect of bringing the people of Russia and of the United States to view the “other” as “evil.”  And in fact they are not.  They are committed to their own national interests.