"This is a four-year cash grab."
Purposefully or not, President Trump's comments at the recent NATO summit have brought some sobering truths to the fore.
“The Russians tried to destroy the very fundamental of democracy, and that is to change the outcome of an American election.”
If not useful for military purposes, is there any other reason to bring Podgorica into NATO? Last year Deputy Assistant Secretary
No position taken by President-elect Donald Trump more upsets leading Republican legislators than his desire to reconcile
A couple of Rand Corporation scholars have discovered America's problem vis-à-vis Russia: Washington isn't willing to use its military as much. This has given Moscow an apparently unfair advantage in challenging America. Maybe Washington should reconsider its policy, they suggest.
The latest joke in our absurd presidential campaign is that Russian President Vladimir Putin sees Donald Trump as a strong leader. This is causing belly-laughs in the Kremlin.
The challenge for NATO is no different than it used to be in West Berlin: to persuade Russia that any war means full-scale war.
Many Ukrainians expect America and Europe to save them. Suggest that they are living a fantasy gets you tarred as a blatant fool and Russian stooge. Yet Ukraine shouldn't waste time posing as a fairy tale maiden in distress waiting for rescue by the Western knight in shining armor. Kiev risks ending up as a failed state.
Rather than reflexively continue sanctions, the Western states should rethink their policy toward Russia. Vladimir Putin isn't a nice guy, but that hardly sets him apart. Russian democracy may be an oxymoron, but then, lack of civil and political rights never stopped Washington from backing Egypt, aiding Pakistan, or embracing Saudi Arabia.
NATO expansion was considered a great success. But now the alliance realizes that it is obligated to war against nuclear-armed Russia on behalf of three essentially indefensible countries.
What would Russia gain from attacking the Baltics? A recalcitrant, majority non-ethnic Russian population. A possible temporary nationalist surge at home. A likely short-lived victory over the West. The costs would be far greater.
The U.S. plans on filling Eastern Europe with thousands of troops along with vehicles and weapons to equip an armored combat brigade. Uncle Sam may be bankrupt, but nothing is too expensive for our pampered European allies, who enjoy greater wealth while spending far less on the military.
Much is said these days about the mismatch of missions and resources for the military. Indeed, the chants of neoconservatives on Capitol Hill have gotten quite loud: more military spending, more personnel, more weapons.