Tag: compromise

French ambassador: US ‘rules-based order’ means Western domination, violating international law

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

France’s ex US Ambassador Gérard Araud criticised Washington for frequently violating international law and said its so-called “rules-based order” is an unfair “Western order” based on “hegemony.” He condemned the new cold war on China, instead calling for mutual compromises.

French ambassador: US ‘rules-based order’ means Western domination, violating international law

How JFK Sacrificed Adlai Stevenson and the Lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

How JFK Sacrificed Adlai Stevenson and the Lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis

In those interim years, the fictional story of how the missile crisis was resolved became foreign-policy folklore. None of the early memoirs by top Kennedy aides, such as Schlesinger and Sorensen, contained the real history. These incomplete accounts became the basis of the foreign-policy models and paradigms in political scientist Graham Allison’s highly influential book, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. A full generation of scholars, analysts, foreign-policy makers, and even presidents learned the wrong lessons from the most significant superpower conflict in modern history.

Sixty years later, however, the Biden administration at least has a more complete record of history to draw on as U.S. policymakers and the world confront another time of crisis in the nuclear age. How applicable the lessons of the missile crisis will prove to be in preventing an escalation of the Russia-Ukraine war remains unknown. But the mantra of reason that Stevenson shared with Kennedy in October 1962 seems more relevant than ever: “Blackmail and intimidation never, negotiation and sanity always.”

Related:

The Cuban Missile Crisis @ 60 How John F. Kennedy Sacrificed His Most Consequential Crisis Advisor

The Great Game in Ukraine is Spinning Out of Control

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski famously described Ukraine as a “geopolitical pivot” of Eurasia, central to both US and Russian power. Since Russia views its vital security interests to be at stake in the current conflict, the war in Ukraine is rapidly escalating to a nuclear showdown. It’s urgent for both the US and Russia to exercise restraint before disaster hits.

The Great Game in Ukraine is Spinning Out of Control

Is the USA Scoring Self-Goals With Its Ukraine Policy?

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

There has already been significant criticism of the Ukraine policy of the USA government from a perspective of world peace. The base of US policy is the concept of a proxy war that can bleed and weaken Russia as much as possible (at great cost to the people of Ukraine as well as the peace and stability of the rest of the world). This has been documented at several places. However another important aspect which has unfortunately received very less attention is that the Ukraine policy of the USA government also seriously violates the real, broader interests of the USA government and people.

Is the USA Scoring Self-Goals With Its Ukraine Policy?

Related:

Nearly 90 Percent of the World Isn’t Following Us on Ukraine

Globalization can function only if most participants believe it advances their interests. If the rest believe the West is unfairly using the system for its own benefit, the rules- based international order falls apart and alternatives will emerge.

…

These concerns are generating considerable anti-Western sentiment across much of the Global South. While a nuclear-armed Russia shows no willingness to end a war its leaders cannot afford to lose; the West is rapidly losing the rest and thus undermining the very rules-based international order it has sought to create. Our most promising solution to this dilemma is likely to be some sort of diplomatic compromise.

/sarcasm

The Scott Horton Show: Roger Waters on Palestine, Assange and Ukraine

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Sep 22, 2022 – Scott interviews Roger Waters, co-founder of the band Pink Floyd. They begin with a look back at how Waters first woke up to the plight of the Palestinians. That leads to a discussion about the persecution of Julian Assange, which Waters has been actively speaking out against. Next, they look to the war in Ukraine and discuss Waters’ public back and forth with the first lady of Ukraine Olena Zelenska. Lastly, Scott brings Waters up to speed on the effort to end the war in Yemen.

Ep 5767 – Roger Waters on Palestine, Assange and Ukraine – 9/19/22 via The Scott Horton Show

Related:

9/19/22 Roger Waters on Palestine, Assange and Ukraine

Roger Waters Responds To Mrs. Olena Zelenska of Ukraine: Kiev Must Lead the Charge for Peace

Roger Waters: War, Peace, Art and Activism

An Ominous Murder in Moscow

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)1 Comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Ms. Cat’s Chronicles.

An Ominous Murder in Moscow

The second thought was a byproduct of the first. The prospect of sudden escalation reminded me of a podcast conversation I listened to seven weeks into the war—a conversation that left me more worried than ever that American foreign policy is not in capable hands. The killing of Dugina, in a roundabout way, corroborates that worry.

The conversation was between Ryan Evans, host of the War on the Rocks podcast, and Derek Chollet, who, as Counselor of the State Department, reports directly to Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Chollet was recounting diplomatic discussions between Moscow and Washington that had taken place before the invasion. He said something that had never before been officially confirmed: The US had refused to negotiate with Russia about keeping Ukraine out of NATO.

What bothered me wasn’t this disclosure; I’d already gathered (and lamented) that the Biden administration had refused to seriously engage Russia’s main stated grievance. What bothered me—and kind of shocked me—was how proud Chollet seemed of the refusal.

After all, when negotiations aimed at preventing the invasion of a nation you’re friends with are followed by the invasion of that nation, that’s not success, right? Apparently by Chollet’s lights it was.

…

Last week John Mearsheimer (who seven years ago predicted eventual Russian invasion if the NATO expansion issue wasn’t addressed) published a piece in Foreign Affairs warning that as this war drags on, “catastrophic escalation” is a real possibility. Some people dismissed scenarios he sketched as conjectural. Yet exactly one day after his piece appeared, the real world provided us with a new scenario: daughter of iconic Russian nationalist murdered, leaving her aggrieved father to whip up support for a longer and bloodier and possibly wider war. Every day of every war brings the possibility of an unsettling surprise.

…

Listening to Chollet talk about what a strategic loss this war is for Putin, I was struck by how excited he sounded about that and by how youthful and naïve his excitement seemed. It would have been poignant if it weren’t scary. And I’ve seen no evidence that his boss at the State Department is more reflective than he is. Our foreign policy seems driven by two main impulses—macho posturing and virtue signaling—that work in unfortunate synergy and leave little room for wisdom.

Bringing this tragic war to a close is something that’s hard to do in the near term and is impossible to do without painful compromise. But I see no signs that the US is even contemplating such an effort, much less laying the groundwork for it. I worry that Chollet’s attitude in April—what seemed like a kind of delight in the prospect of a war that is long and costly for Russia—may still prevail in the State Department. So it’s worth repeating:

(1) A massively costly war for Russia can be a massively costly war for Ukraine and, ultimately, for Europe and for the whole world; and (2) Every day this war continues there’s a chance that we’ll see some wild card—like the murder of Daria Dugina—that makes such a lose-lose outcome more likely.

Stephen Kinzer: Neutralism returns — and gets more powerful

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Stephen Kinzer: Neutralism returns — and gets more powerful

Many countries recoil from us-versus-them confrontations like the one Biden is now promoting. They prefer to resolve disputes through compromise and to maintain good ties even with countries they fear or dislike. Besides, Biden’s insistence that he is leading a global war against autocracy is hard to take seriously as he kowtows to Saudi Arabia, where dissent is punished by beheading or dismemberment.

A second reason more countries are drifting away from the United States is that to many of them, we seem unreliable. In recent years our foreign policies have zigzagged wildly. Written accords with other countries appear and disappear according to election results. Add our acute domestic problems to this mix, and it’s easy to understand why some countries feel reluctant to hitch their wagon to our

One recent American step has especially spooked several large countries. As soon as war broke out in Ukraine, we and our allies froze billions of dollars that Russia keeps in Western banks. Other countries fear they might suffer the same fate if they one day fall afoul of the United States. To prevent that, they are looking for other places to park their money and imagining banking networks outside of Washington’s control. Saudi Arabia is negotiating with China to price its oil in yuan as well as dollars. Iran’s stock market opened a legal exchange this month for trading the Iranian and Russian currencies.