The most recent crisis in Kosovo-Serbia relations was instigated by Serbia in September 2021. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>Conflict in Ukraine and Kosovo are connected

By David L. Phillips
Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights. The Russia-Ukraine border is a dangerous flash-point for conflict escalation. Biden would terminate Nord Stream-II, a critical source of revenue to Russia selling natural gas in Europe in the event of an attack on Ukraine. The Government of Kosovo imposed reciprocity measures on vehicle license plates with Serbia. Serbia, acting as Russia’s proxy, is intensifying efforts to destabilize Kosovo, a staunchly pro-American country that aspires to membership in NATO and the European Union. Biden warned Putin that the US was prepared to implement a package of diplomatic and economic reprisals during their recent teleconference. Columns of naval infantry attached to Russia's Black Sea Fleet march through the huge port city of Sevastopol in Crimea. Serbia is apparently preparing for war, spending lavishly on sophisticated offensive weapons. Putin thinks he can avoid a major confrontation with the US over Ukraine by creating a crisis between Serbia and Kosovo. Ukraine is a sovereign and independent state, which makes decisions for itself. Biden made no such guarantee. Putin believes that “The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.” Soviet revisionism and anti-Americanism are defining characteristics of Putin’s imperial rule. The legendary American diplomat Richard Holbrooke said of Serbia’s ex-President Slobodan Milosevic: “[He] tries to solve a problem by making a bigger one.” The same can be said of Putin’s policy in Russia’s near abroad and the Balkans. Russia and Serbia are testing the commitment of NATO and the US to allies and partners. Putin believes that concurrent “war theaters” in Ukraine and Kosovo would overextend NATO and test Washington’s commitment. That’s a lot of money to spend when there is no external threat. He served as Ambassador of Kosovo in Stockholm and briefly as the first Liaison Officer of Kosovo to Serbia. Ukraine is a tinderbox. Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

Vladimir Putin claims that protecting ethnic Russians justifies military action against Ukraine. Tensions were exacerbated by MIG-29s skirting Kosovo’s airspace. He served as a senior adviser and foreign affairs expert at the State Department during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. In Ukraine, Russia deployed “little green men”, operating undercover without military insignias. By Lulzim Peci
Director of the Kosovar Institute for Policy Research and Development (KIPRED). More than 120,000 Russian troops have massed on Ukraine’s eastern border, including snipers, tanks, and artillery. Russia’s Ambassador to Serbia, Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko, chose this toxic time to inspect Serbia’s military corps, which were in a state of elevated combat readiness. Nor does he want the United States to implement biting sanctions. An attack could provoke Albania to intervene. He is catering to a domestic Russian audience, which believes that Ukraine is part of Russia and should be disciplined for breaking away from the motherland. It was only seven years ago that Russia invaded and occupied Crimea, part of a sovereign and independent Ukraine, claiming to protect ethnic Russians. Chapter 35 in Serbia’s EU accession talks require mutual recognition and normalization of relations with Kosovo. His greater global goal is to confront NATO and undermine US leadership to redeem the Russian Empire’s past glory. In response, Serbia’s President Aleksander Vucic deployed military close to the border with Kosovo. Putin does not want a live-fire confrontation with the US in the Black Sea. The US must be ready for Russian incitement on multiple fronts.  
Putin has cited the “Kosovo precedent” to justify Russia’s occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. When Putin and US President Joe Biden met via teleconference on December 7, Putin demanded guarantees that Ukraine would never join NATO or allow NATO infrastructure on its soil.         
While the Biden administration is focused on Ukraine, a similar scenario is unfolding in the border between Serbia and Kosovo. Echoing Putin’s remarks on Ukraine, Vucic threatened to intervene militarily in Kosovo in order to “protect the undefended Serbian population”. Over the last decade, Russia and Serbia have greatly expanded their military cooperation. He wants to reorient Kosovo-Serbia talks, which could be accomplished through a flare-up. While President Joe Biden is focused on Ukraine, another threat is looming in the Western Balkans. Putin calculates that an escalation of deadly violence in Southeast Europe would distract the Biden administration from a resolute response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The base is a hub for intelligence operations and a staging ground for special operations, including Russian mercenaries. The strategic peninsula was illegally seized by Moscow in 2014. Russia’s intelligence operations involve extensive cyber operations and malign influence operations aiming to radicalize Kosovo Serbs. Vucic is unwilling to acknowledge Kosovo’s independence, so Serbia’s EU aspirations are blocked.   
Putin pursues a bellicose approach to Ukraine, knowing that conflict ill-serves Russia with the international community. Failure to defend Kosovo would open the door for a wider European war, affecting the current world order. Similarly, Russian agents are present in north Kosovo. His action was a statement of Russian–Serbian solidarity against Kosovo. Putin’s concern for Ukraine’s Russian minority is bombastic. Serbia doubled its defense budget over the last three years to $1.5 billion. “An attack on any NATO ally would be considered an attack against all members of the Alliance”, which would take the necessary actions to assist. NATO must be ready for the possibility that Serbia, in cooperation with Russia, might instigate a crisis in the northern part of Kosovo, opening a proxy armed conflict. Serbia and Russia- established a “Humanitarian Center” in Niš about 100 km from the Kosovo border. It purchased MIG warplanes, T-72 tanks and other armor from Russia. This scenario mirrors Russia’s approach to Ukraine’s eastern Donbass region. Violence in Kosovo would embroil the US and troops from NATO countries that are based in Kosovo. The North Atlantic Council could activate Article 5 of the North Atlantic Alliance charter. His recent books include An Uncertain Ally: Turkey Under Erdogan’s Dictatorship.

Bush in Tirana in 2007. Berisha always professed loudly his “Atlanticism” and stood on the US side in the wars in former Yugoslavia, in Iraq and Afghanistan by contributing troops; he also received at the behest of the US government refugees no one else would accept like Uyghur extremists from the Guantanamo Bay camp and Iranian resistance fighters chased by the despotic regime of the ayatollahs. He also had them sometimes covering up these transgressions. His successor, Edi Rama, from the opposing Socialist Party, who was appointed Prime Minister after winning the 2013 general elections also did favors for the US by tripling the number of Iranian asylum-seekers and recently accepting Afghans who worked for American entities. Rama’s Interior Minister Saimir Tahiri 2013-2017 is facing charges of corruption and narcotics trafficking and has appealed his standing convictions on these charges. The affair has been brought to public attention since a naval officer who resisted government orders and was consequently fired has publicly denounced the ploy and referred the matter to the Prosecutor’s Office and, by his own admission to the US Embassy. The then-US Ambassador Donald Lu, contrary to State and other international reports, kept praising his wars on drugs. Former Albanian President Sali Berisha. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>Amateur hour for US diplomacy in Albania

By Genc Pollo
Albanian MP and former Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on European Integration. When eventually Basha complied with Kim’s request Berisha protested and launched a series of party grassroots meetings. On the democracy issue, Ambassador Kim, together with her European colleagues, mediated a deal in 2020 on electoral reform between the government and opposition. The political event was a novelty in many ways: one of them was the direct call by Mr. This was a welcome relief for the party faithful and was also interpreted as serious political blowback for the US Embassy. Berisha on Madame Yuri Kim, the US Ambassador, not to be bossy like her Soviet counterpart in the late 1950s when Albania was part of the Warsaw Pact. Ambassador Kim unsuccessfully asked the election authority to cancel Berisha’s parliamentary mandate. Then she put pressure on the Democratic Party chairman Lulzim Basha to expel him from the party’s parliamentary group; she even and went public about this matter using offensive quotes from Enver Hoxha, the longtime Communist leader. While the Albanians have historical reasons to be thankful to the United States, current opinion polls show diminishing support figures. An investigative media report, partly covered by US Embassy media development funding, showed how significant assets of certain Albanian navy bases were given to property developers close to the government. This has seriously hampered the naval capacity of Albania, a NATO member. He is also an ex-Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Education; Telecoms

US Ambassador to Albania Yuri Kim. And unfortunately for many of us, also against the country and symbols of liberty and democracy that they happen to represent. No easy matter given the very polarized politics in the country and no small feat given the serious shortcomings of past elections. On May 19 this year US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken approved the public designation of Mr. The government however did not wait for the ink to dry on the agreement to unilaterally change the election seat distribution formula to its advantage. Such biased stances paired with what was seen as “celebrity-like” attention-seeking behavior had already spurred criticism of the US Ambassador. Still, he somehow managed to do something unprecedented: he managed to silence the US Ambassador on his many and serious transgressions involving democracy and the rule of law. Bush and Bill Clinton and he also officially hosted President George W. Many would be surprised to hear this from a leader who boasted he was the first among his Eastern European peers to formally ask for NATO membership in the early 1990s and to achieve it as prime minister in 2009. Indeed, he was received as Albania’s President in the White House by Presidents George H.W. The journalist found serious breaches in the asset transfer procedures and alleged official corruption as a motivation. He oversaw a huge and unprecedented illegal cannabis cultivation in 2016. His successor Yuri Kim has not fared much better. With the opposition and European officials crying foul, Ambassador Kim was the only one arguing that the government changes did not actually breach the internationally mediated agreement. Criticism of Kim for asking editors of the main media not to cover these
meetings spiced feelings up. Tahiri was even included in the Rama-led delegation visiting the White House in April 2016 sitting across from President Barack Obama. When prosecutors finally went after Tahiri in the fall of 2017 Lu publicly defended him comparing the judicial case with a Communist-era kangaroo court. Kim has repeatedly stated her priorities would be to promote democracy in Albania and improve defense ties with the US. Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

On December 11, Sali Berisha, a two-term Prime Minister and President of Albania, was addressing some ten thousand jubilant Democratic Party congress participants in the Tirana main soccer stadium. With Basha unable to score a single election win during his years of chairmanship, Washington’s questionable designation that many perceived as politically motivated and convenient to the very corrupt Socialist government along with Kim’s arrogance bordering on insolence, it is no surprise the Berisha movement expanded exponentially. Berisha was quick to add that he always believed that the Moscow-led bloc was an evil empire while the United States has been a steady beacon of liberty for the world. While it may have been unethical for the US to support their various “sons of a bitches” at crucial times in recent history, it certainly served a core diplomatic and strategic purpose at the height of the Cold War, but it is rationally inexplicable why American diplomats would behave like this in what has been up to now the most pro-American country in Europe. The move, under the State Department’s so-called Section 7031 (c) authority, was widely questioned by many, including members of the US Congress, since Berisha has been eight years out of power; further, his criticism of the Rama government often tracked closely with various State Department reports. But more was still to come. Berisha as ineligible to enter America on grounds of corruption. The December DP congress called by a majority of its members removed Basha by an overwhelming majority and appointed a Provisional Committee including Berisha to run the party. The US Ambassador, unperturbed, has excessively shown herself in public, exchanging congratulations with the politicians who are the prime suspects in the report. This is in my view certainly a direct consequence of hubristic and inept diplomats who are solely responsible for turning at least half of the body politic and of the general public against them.

The lack of framework and a full concept has led to division and confusion within the EU and its allies. It was even echoed by top EU leadership. With the Strategic Compass set to be rolled out in March of 2022, the confusion and lack of clear messaging around has caused EU member states as well as allies, confusion on what the end goal is for the EU. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>Its time to rebrand or put the idea of a European Defense Force to rest

By Danielle Piatkiewicz
Research Fellow, EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy. Another point driving countries like Poland, who remain a top defense spender in the EU, who still view US as a security provider and NATO as a security umbrella. The messaging has and continues to be wrong
The recent withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan is just the latest example of the latest murmurs of developing a European army. If the EU wants to pursue its objectives within the Strategic Compass, it needs to get the messaging both internally and externally, right. French President Emmanuel Macron has established himself as a driving force of the ‘European Army idea, calling for a united Europe able to defend itself from external threats, without the auspices of the US. Since then, the debate reemerges often after political or security shifts in the EU but primarily when the US’s priorities shift. That is why if the EU wants to further invest in defense and security cooperation, it should do just that but within the existing framework. Members of the German Bundeswehr carry torches during a ceremonial parade. The development of a rapid response force, alongside the already established battlegroups, have already been discussed, but many critics explained that due to a lack of political will and their effectiveness, the battlegroups, in whichever form, have not proved to be an efficient endeavor. In 2018, “68% of Europeans said they would like the EU to do more on defense.”
The survey showed a clear split with countries in Central and Eastern Europe, mainly driven by Poland who have voiced concerns both around creating a European Army. To take various strains of strategic autonomy forward, the EU has implemented a Strategic Compass that sets out a common strategic vision for EU security and defense which includes improving the readiness of EU armed forces on a multitude of fronts. Macron’s urge was later endorsed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with the caveat that such an army would complement NATO, not compete with it. Rebrand or put the European Army to rest? All aimed at enhancing collaborative research between the 27 members of the EU to develop their military capability. If not approached correctly, it can weaken the trust between the EU and the US and potentially EU cohesion. Would each country give up their national armies to merge into one force? Issues around incentivization and low defence spending among European countries remains an obstacle to both a strategic autonomy as well as European Army. The end goal of having a more independent EU defense force, utilizing existing forces and capabilities needs to be clearer. Ongoing questions linger – what would a European Army look like? In September, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated in response to the situation in Afghanistan that “the EU should seek to beef up its military capabilities to confront security threats and global crises”. On paper, it looks a lot like the points driving a European Defense Army, but without creating an actual autonomous EU army – hence lies the confusion. And how to develop it without duplicating resources and capabilities with NATO? With the French driving the strategic autonomy and European army debate, would they take charge or would Germany’s approach of keeping NATO integrated take the lead? This is essential as the EU faces growing challenges along its borders and needs to be on the same page security-wise. Why the division? As outlined before, the EU has mechanisms in place to bolster and upgrade its military and defense capabilities – but more needs to be done to further exchange and incentivize member states to invest in programs like EDF and PESCO projects. And not to mention that dividing history within Europe of trying to jointly build military equipment. The concept of a European Army has its roots in the early 1950s when strengthening joint defense capabilities against threats such as the Soviet Union were in discussion. Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

There are a few reoccurring issues that come up around the EU water cooler and that is the idea of a European Defense Force, commonly known as a “European Army”.  
2022 offers a unique opportunity, as the NATO Strategic Concept and Strategic Compass roll out, it is a moment to align on security priorities while deepening cooperation.  
Unfortunately, the idea of a European Army continues to generate more questions than answers. Since then, programs such as European Defense Fund (EDF) and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) have been established to provide funding towards defense projects and research, while encouraging military cooperation and EU-wide defense-industrial projects. In the end, a stronger EU in defense, means stronger NATO and transatlantic defense. Another issue is that the idea of a European Army has become synonymous with the EU’s pursuit of strategic autonomy which essentially means military, economic and technological independence from the US. Who would be in charge? A previous Eurobarometer survey examining perceptions from EU member states from 2017 mentioned that “three quarters (75%) are in favour of a common EU defence and security policy” and “a majority (55%) were in favour of creating an EU army”. Best highlighted in 2018, when the EU found itself dealing with a disengaged US global leadership under the Trump administration. The political clout often hovering around the European Army is distracting from the goals of the EU – to ensure a stronger and more cohesive defense partnership. Generated by fears that a more assertive EU military plan would simply erode the EU-US relationship. Essentially, cultivating the political will to intervene militarily without reliance on the US or a US-led NATO.

As I mentioned several years ago, North Korea is not Iran and it is at an impasse. Simply, the weaker North Korea becomes, the more dangerous it becomes to China, the Indo-Pacific region, and by extension, the rest of the world. For the past few years, the U.S. It is certainly feasible that without Beijing’s foreign aid, Pyongyang would face a regime collapse, which alludes to every leader’s worst nightmare. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>The Korean Peninsula should remain a security concern

By Christopher Lee
Geopolitical, military and security expert focusing on the Indo-Pacific region. Alliance’s ability to adapt and modernize to meet the North Korean threat has enhanced regional and global security, success is not limited to equipment such as the Patriot upgrade. It is difficult, if not impossible, to overstate the threat North Korea poses to the Korean Peninsula and the Indo-Pacific region. China’s actions reveal its insecurity in internal politics and its role on the international stage. China is shaping its international relations path while abdicating its role as a true regional leader responding to a geopolitical crisis such as North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship. P5+1 will not be able to negotiate a deal with Kim, Jong-un, and no country, not even the U.S. Thus, if Beijing hopes to uphold armistice and stability on their borders, its policymakers have no choice but to maintain its status quo with Pyongyang and Kim Jong-un, even when facing more severe criticism from the international community. PAC-3s. Xi has become increasingly proactive in defending its interests, but ambiguous about what its actual interests are in delaying open conflict with other leaders for as long as possible. Further compounding the situation, China is by no means a reluctant stakeholder, but rather self-interested, unwilling leader. History teaches us that Xi’s passive course of action regarding Kim Jong-un may be intentional. Lee holds an MA from Columbia University and is currently pursuing an executive MBA at UCLA. The alliance’s ironclad strength is made manifest through its signature ability to seamlessly integrate personnel and systems capabilities. Bolstered by the frequent modernization of capabilities and ongoing efforts to strengthen interoperability, the U.S.-South Korea Alliance may conceivably develop into a resilient and adaptable partnership to best respond to a changing security environment. By working together, the alliance can win the “fight tonight” and defeat the enemy threat. Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

With both South Korea and the United States focused on domestic matters – 2022 presidential race and 2022 midterm elections respectively, it will be extremely difficult for both to offer exit strategies to North Korea’s imposing threats in the foreseeable future. While the South Korea-U.S. With the world’s fourth-largest conventional military located merely 35 miles away, the South Korea-U.S. To enhance footprint coverage for BMD, the South Korean government upgraded its PAC-2s to PAC-3s last year, when combined with current U.S. The demilitarized zone separating South Korea from the Communist North. has deployed its third-generation Patriot missile batteries (PAC-3s) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense to South Korea, which increases the shoot down capability of enemy ballistic missiles due to enhanced performance in range, height, maneuverability, and detection. A graduate of West Point, Mr. Alliance confronts and deters a potentially devastating conflict daily. Nonetheless, after Pyongyang’s sixth nuclear test, now more than ever, it is critical that the alliance make every effort to maintain readiness to defend South Korea at a moment’s notice. Seoul cannot depend on Beijing and should not expect President Xi Jinping to alter course on Pyongyang. It has worked since the Kim Jong-il era from 1994-2011, but it also reminds us that totalitarian regimes close to demise are bound to behave rashly and little Kim would be no exception to this history lesson. Washington and Seoul must continue to improve interoperability and institutional combined operations. will be able to stop North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship. Upgraded software enables tailored searches for Theater Ballistic Missiles and a “keep-out altitude” to destroy missiles with chemical warheads or early release sub munitions at specified altitudes, minimizing ground fallout. A robust and integrated layered defense system is critical to counter the increased North Korean ballistic missile threat to the Korean Peninsula. Seoul needs to continue to rely on strengthening the alliance with Washington and work on defense modernization geared towards its Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD). South Korea has vast varieties of armor, aviation, air defense, aviation, and missiles in their armed forces. In short, by upgrading and modernizing its military, South Korea will continue to grow as a middle-power country as they fulfill their role as a buffer and rapid deployment force in the Indo-Pacific Theater, constraining North Korea. These upgraded PAC-3s are ballistic missile “hit-to-kill” intercept capable like the U.S. PAC-3s, will create an effective missile defense system across the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, South Korean policymakers must focus on what they can control.

But what would a pause and diplomacy accomplish? For proof, look no further than the Washington Post editorial page, which from the very start of the Ukraine crisis has been cavalierly dismissing calls for diplomacy and engagement and, instead, has been calling for outright war. Harvard University’s Stephen Walt once quipped that “Being a Neocon Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry.” And in this regard, the story of the Kagan family is instructive. Having brought about multiple disasters in the two decades since 9/11—from the Iraq War to the twin debacles in Libya and Syria—the neoconservatives seem to have perfected the art of failing up. His brother, Frederick, is a resident scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. What, one wonders, has been the United States’ return on this massive investment? At no point did the [Washington] Post actually explain how it would propose to go about reversing Putin’s aggression.”
This remains the case even today. Carden
Former adviser to the State Department and a frequent contributor to The American Conservative and The Quincy Institute’s Responsible Statecraft. Robert Kagan, a contributing columnist for the Washington Post, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of pseudohistories such as The Jungle Grows Back, has for years been a leading advocate of American militarism. national interests where none exist. Not much has changed since the start of the Ukrainian crisis nearly eight years ago. Indeed, both Nuland and the SFRC seem to see U.S. Indeed, both Frederick and his wife are frequently cited as the brains behind the surge strategy pursued by George W. At no point do the armchair warriors braying for war with Russia over Ukraine discuss how such a “reversal” might be carried out, or, even more tellingly, what the odds might be of a successful outcome of a war between the U.S. stands “united” in support of Ukraine and against Russia. Bush’s administration in 2007-2008. SFRC Chairman Bob Menendez, who, in 2015, was indicted on federal corruption charges, seems to be under the impression that Russians do not have the overwhelming military advantage on their own border. and Russia. The most astute comment of the day came from Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who was clearly proud that the committee had achieved a rare bipartisan agreement for a change. is at grave risk of a war with Russia—and there is precious little debate about the policies that have brought us to this point—is that foreign policy in Washington is conducted by a virtually closed circle. It was in this role that Nuland helped orchestrate the overthrow of a democratically elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014 that led to a civil war in Ukraine, in which more than 13,000 people have died, according to the United Nations. Part of the reason the U.S. An example of this is the Washington Post view published on their editorial page on August 21, 2014:
“…it is tempting to look for a cease-fire or some kind of time out that would lead to a period of diplomatic negotiation. More worrying still, they seem to possess a kind of blind faith in America’s ability, indeed duty, to shape outcomes of conflicts that are taking place thousands of miles from our shores through a combination of sanctions and military threats. and European ground and air forces to what could become a new Iron Curtain.” He and his wife, Kimberly, who heads the Institute for the Study of War—another pro-war Washington think tank—were close advisers to the disgraced General and former CIA Director David Petraeus. But the most powerful member of the Kagan clan is Victoria Nuland, who is the wife of Robert and is the U.S. Washington’s legacy media organizations play their part in perpetuating these foreign policies as well by functioning as the permanent bureaucracy’s echo chamber. Ukrainian paratroopers outside the Donbass city of Kramatorsk in 2014. Likewise, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) intoned that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would “require us [the U.S.] to escalate.”
Senator Todd Young (R-IN), meanwhile, pressed Nuland on “what measures are being considered by the administration to counter Russian aggression,” while Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) indicated that during her conversations with members of parliament (MP) from Estonia, they spoke about the importance of “European unity with respect to Ukraine.” Also, the MPs from Estonia along with Poland and other Eastern European countries expressed anxiousness about “whether or not to station more troops in the Baltic nations,” Senator Shaheen said. Writing in the Hill on December 7, Frederick Kagan claimed that Russian control of Ukraine, “would create an existential threat to Poland and even to Romania—one that could be met only by major deployments of U.S. By James W. The only acceptable solution is for Mr. OLYA ENGALYCHEVA

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

If anything, Washington’s neoconservatives have an unerring instinct for survival. Much of this comes right out of Putin’s 2014 playbook but this time, it is on a much larger and more lethal scale. And that circle is dominated by people like the Kagans. government has given $2.4 billion to Ukraine since 2014 “in security assistance,” which included $450 million that was given in 2021 alone. Under Obama, Nuland served as the State Department spokesperson, a position for which she was manifestly overqualified (and that becomes especially clear if one takes the qualifications of the current spokesman into consideration), before assuming the role of the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. And Johnson was absolutely correct: The committee was completely united in its desire for conflict over Ukraine, with whom the U.S. government officials who testify before them; from the staffers who brief them to the scholars and policy hands-on whom the staffers rely; right down to the reporters and journalists who uncritically regurgitate what they are told by their ‘anonymous’ administration sources. has no treaty obligations whatsoever. The SFRC hearing showed, if nothing else, that American foreign policy is held hostage by a venal, avaricious and, above all, a reckless claque of elites: From the members of the SFRC to the high U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. Any negotiations that leave this blight festering in Ukraine must be avoided. He further emphasized that the U.S. Putin’s aggression to be reversed.”
As Jacob Heilbrunn, the editor of the National Interest, and I commented at the time, “Almost as bad as the callousness on display is the lack of candor. So despite our uncertainty about exact intentions and timing, we must prepare for all contingencies, even as we push Russia to reverse course.”
Nuland went on to note that the U.S. As such, one of the most urgent questions before us is: How do Americans of good conscience finally break their stranglehold on power before it’s too late? Nuland testified that:
“We don’t know whether Russian President [Vladimir] Putin has made a decision to attack Ukraine or overthrow its government but we do know he is building the capacity to do so. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>How do we stop the neocons from starting another disaster in Ukraine? Consider for a moment the testimony on “Update on U.S.-Russia Policy” by Nuland made before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) on December 7.