The fallout from Washington’s policy of seeking Russia’s strategic defeat has seen Moscow radically alter its arms control position. That raises important questions about the winner of the next U.S. presidential election.
An economist digging below the surface of an IMF report has found something that should shock the Western bloc out of any false confidence in its unsurpassed global economic clout.
Scott Ritter appeared on C-Span on Aug. 1, 2002, seven months before the Iraq invasion, to argue Iraq was no threat to the U.S. and that the Bush administration needed to prove it before taking the country to war.
Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Despite Colin Powell’s presentation and the U.S. media’s embrace of it, every other nation on the Security Council, with the exception of Britain and Spain, was highly skeptical of the U.S. argument for war, including allies Germany and France.
U.S. intelligence was too quick to leak information about the German investigation to The New York Times. It raises the distinct impression that the real culprit is nervous about the investigative work of Seymour Hersh.
Having used arms control to gain unilateral advantage over Russia, the cost to the U.S. and NATO in getting Moscow back to the negotiating table will be high.
As Russia suspends New START, the sooner the Ukraine war ends, the sooner the U.S. and Russia can work to preserve arms control to avert the ultimate disaster.
“I once was corrupted by the hatred that comes from fear generated by ignorance.” The author offers a text of a speech he wrote, but will not be giving at the Feb. 19 antiwar rally in Washington.
In deciding to supply Leopard battle tanks to Ukraine, Olaf Scholtz breaks the self-imposed constraints on the military’s role in German foreign policy that had been in place since the end of WWII.
