Because of their grossly inaccurate assessments of the Russian president and his country, “Putin Whisperers” in the West have Ukrainian blood on their hands.
Any retrospective on the Russian-Ukraine conflict begins with a modicum of interest in how Moscow defines the conflict. First of an article in two parts.
After the collapse of the U.S.S.R. many Ukrainians, including members of the Rada, had a new agenda, writes Edward Lozansky. But Washington wasn’t interested.
The problem isn’t “global inaction” to prevent mass atrocities, as The Guardian claims, writes Jonathan Cook. It’s intense U.S. and U.K. support for atrocities so long as they bolster their global power.
As the crisis unfolds, the brute exercise of power by the U.S. and Israel has catalyzed world reactions. A significant transformation in global diplomacy is underway.
Citing examples of Richard Nixon’s leadership, historian Joan Hoff-Wilson refers to Henry Kissinger as “a glorified messenger boy,” writes Robert Scheer.
The United States’ most notorious diplomat was behind key nuclear arms control treaties with the USSR that kept a lid on the possibility of catastrophic nuclear exchange.
The idea that Ukraine’s senior command had the ability or daring to execute the complex and risky venture of blowing up the pipelines without involving the U.S. beggars belief, writes Jonathan Cook.
As Russia modernizes its nuclear arsenal it is no longer interested in trying to patch up an arms control relationship with the U.S. based on the legacy of the Cold War.