Saturday, March 28, 2015

(4) Speeches in relatie tot de CEWA

Tweede bijeenkomst in Brussel van CEWA. ( 2 maart 2015)
( English transcripts below! )

( Het oorspronkelijke ACEWA bestond van 1974 tot 1992)

Doctorow houdt een inleiding.
Drie  zwaargewichten geven elk een korte inleiding:
Mearsheimer ( The Israel Lobby) Univ. of Chicago.
prof. Stephen Cohen.  Princeton.  Rusland deskundige,
Katherine vandenHeuvel ( The Nation) echtgenote van S Cohen.

Eerst 40 minuten met toespraken van deze drie belangrijke sprekers.
Daarna in deel 2:  Tien sprekers die elk 3 minuten mogen spreken. Op sommige van hun vragen wordt door Cohen en Mearsheimer geantwoord. Daar zitten heel interessante teksten bij die ik soms letterlijk heb uitgeschreven: de lichtgele teksten. Het geel markeren wil niet lukken. Ik heb de interessante stukken rood gemaakt. 

Verder dienen de uitgeschreven zinnetjes om U een idee te geven waarover de spreker zoal sprak. Ik besef dat die zinnetjes vaak niet goed te begrijpen zijn .

Press Club Part 1. ( I wrote some kind of transcript : see below)

Press Club Part 2. ( For transcript of some interesting parts of the discussion: see marked  dark red parts of the 'transcripts')

Youtube: Press Club Part1. 'transcript':

Speeches on 2 march in Brussels:
S Cohen;  Kartharina vanden Heuvel;  J. Mearsheimer.


Americian Committee on East West Accord  was closed in 1994.
No more need for cals delibarations.

But now we have started it again.

40 minutes by 3 presenterrs.()above) 
The next 40 minutes by about 12 other people.
Rest: open discussion.

Next planned event: 15 Mai.   ( Brussels and Berlin)
Angela Merkels Ost West Politics.

4.40 min.
Bring new security architecture and briong the Russians oiut of the cold.
Try to go : Status quo ante: as in 2008.
Go back earlier: very difficult.
Two parts

Till 2008: all very nioce and peaceful.
1)     All OK. Nato remained inrtactr.  US was pacifier.  Powerful military .  Impossible to fight .
Nobody asked the Americans to leave.
Russiand left the US in EU , no problem.

2)     West did not threaten Russians.  In 1999 was some…

In 2008 :  it changed.
April: Sumkmit Bucharest:  Georgia and UIkraine will become part of Nato.

Russia said: Njet.
But nato diod not backoff.

Also: Teh EU started to move east.
In august:  war in Georgia.
Georgia thought that Nato would back them.,  But they were wrong.
This was
10 min.
Obama wantedf to reset the rtelation.
But fauled,
Because thw west kept on pressing to go east:  EU expansion, Nato expamnsion , Democracy promotion. DP.
DP: It is run by the USA: it is about toppling leaders and replace them by pro western leaders.
This tripple attack bothjered the Russians greatly.
Solution?  Go back to before 2008.
Ukraine must be a neutral buffer state.
You cannot try to make Ukr a western bullwark.

Putin makes it clear now: Either you back of or Russia will go to great lengths to destroy Ukraine.
If ypu want to end thios crisis and care for these people, then we must back off.
It was a buffer between 1991 and 2014.
EU and Nato expansion must bve explicitly taken off the table.
And stop democracy propaganda.

How likely is this 180 degree turn.?  Very unlikely:
1 Western Leaders are deeply inbvested in present policy. Very hard to turn the shipo .
2. Putin does noit trust us anymore.
3. Nato itself is in trouble, indep from this crisis.
We pivot toAsia.
We pivot away from EU.  All we need is a bif crisis in Asia, and our attention will be there.

USA interests:  EU, NE Asia, Persian Gulf.
Now Asia will be more improtent, then Persian gulf, then EU.

What is happening:  EU do not pay much on defense.

Future of Nato is bleek.

So: we had an excellent situation with regard to peaqce. But blew it.

18 min:  Stephen Cohen,.
About history.
Be very general. Read between the Lines.
New cold war.
This one is much more dangerous.

This can be the beginning of the end of Nato.

In the US all is blamed on Putin.
They call it Putin’s agression.
Then there is nothing to negotiate.
They see him like Hitler. With a Hitler you cannot negotiate.

It leads to war with Russia.  For the First time I feel it can be real,  Never befor I felt that.
Tot 20 min.   
( prof Stephen Cohen lived in Russia 3 months per year, since the 60s. He was a Kremlin specialist for over 50 years.)
From here on: Complete transcription.
The narrative is that Putin destroyed the peace in Europe. Is not true:
The problem did not begin in 2008. It began in the 1990’s .
The Clinton administration adopted a ‘winner take all’ policy towards Russia. On the premise that the US had won the Cold War and therefore was roughly akin to Japan and Germany (after WW2) . They adopted a policy that was for expansion ( Nato-expansion.) and a policy called 
‘selective cooperation’. If you deconstruct it it means: Russia gives, we take
"You will not be able to give me a single example of any major concession or reciprical agreement ( arms-controle aside) that the US ever offered for what its got. ( In return for what it got since the 1980’s.)   This policy was adopted by the Clinton admin. And has been adopted by every administrations since: Bush and Obama.
Among other things these  2  myths  exist: 
(1) that Putin destroyed peace in Europe)
( 2). That the US was entitled to a sphere of influence as large as it wished (right up to Russia’s boarders) and Russia  was entitled to no sphere of influence at all, not even in Georgia, the entry way to the Caucasus, or in Ukraine, with which Russia has been intermarried for centuries, litterally. Russia had no right.
22.30 min.

And VP Joe Biden specialises in saying that Russia is bad because it seeks its sphere of influence, unlike America which has expanded Nato, which is our sphere of influence…… This is the essential issue.  

It also meant that Russia for 20 years was excluded from the European security system, that was created after the end of the Soviet Union. Nato expansion was the pivot of that security system ands it was directed against Russia. So talk of Russia destroying the security system to which it belonged is something … eh.. a fairy tale to make our children … to make ourselves … not what happened.
23. min.

Now what about Putin ?
Prof. Richard Sakwa ( Univ. Of Kent)  who is really a preeminent scholar about Putins Russia and the West, can speak about this better than I can. He is here. Read his two recent books, they are magnificent … eh,
Putin set out as a kind of pro-western leader, following in the tradition of Gorbachov and Yeltsin. ….  He attempted to join this partnership and we saw this right after 911 when he called Bush and said: “I am with you when you want.”  Putin saved many American lives in the American ground war in Afghanistan to destroy or drive  the Taliban out of power    and in return what Putin got was more expansion of Nato, and the unilateral abolition of the anti ballistic missile Treaty ( ABM Treaty), on which all Russian nuclear security was based.
24 min

That gave us the crisis in Missile Defense today. Putin felt betrayed, and he payed a price in Russia, because yes:  No, Putin is not a an autocrat. He may be but he is answerable ( legt verantwoording af. Is te beïnvloeden. Communiceert met ondergeschikten.)   
Putin is not anti-western. I dont think he is anti-western, even today. As  Chodorkovsky said: He is more European than 99% of all other Russians.)
But he became less pro-western and less pro-American.  Then came the Ukrainian crisis, and since  -- and this is the argument for which in America I am denounced as a Putin –Apologist …..– since november 2013 Putin has been not agressive but  reactive. In every statement he made, every month, every week, every day he has been reactive. ( Dus niet agressief, veroverend, maar defensief, verplicht om de veiligheid van zijn eigen volk te waarborgen. Dus niet vrij om de nato  nog dichterbij te laten komen en zo Rusland in schaak-mat positie te laten verzeilen: als en vogeltje voor de Wall Street poes.  Èlk staatshoofd heeft die plicht: om zijn land te verdedigen. Dàt is wat Putin doet. Toevoeging van JV).  
25 min.
Now, we could say some of his reaction has been unwise. But we don’t know the choices  for sure with which he was presented. I think he re-unified with  Crimea too quickly, but that is just my opinion. He had the intelligence, I did not.
But he was reactively. And for that he has been criticised in Moscow. He was called an appeaser. Soft, on the West. Not tough enough. And we hear that today. ( in Moskou, bedoelt Cohen vermoedelijk.) 

Still worse, in this crisis there was no effective opposition to American policy.

This is profoundly unlike the case in the 1970s and 1980s when I palyed some junior role in this very committee ( ACEWA)  that John  mentioned, in a struggle for what we called ‘detente’. 

We ( Cohen c.s.) (now) have no effective political support (the handful of us) in the Administration, in Congres,  in the political parties, in the thinktanks  or on the campuses. We are utterly alone. This may be changing, it is not clear. And this is an unprecedented situation in American politics,  there is no  discourse, no debate, no struggle between opposing points of view where decisions are made.
This is exceedingly dangerous and this is a failure for American democracy. Why it happened, I am not sure.. ( * Ik zou tegen Cohen willen zeggen: Lees Israel Shamir's boek 'the Masters of Discourse".)
One reason why we have been marginalised and there is no opposition is the extraordinary demonisation of Putin.
27 min.
End of complete transcription.  

Back to summary.  
Putin is vilified much more than other Russian leaders.
We hoped Europe would help  us defending Putin and Russia. But no.
You backed Poroschenko.
Now there is more division in Europe.
There is divison between Merkel and Obama.
I don’t know what is gonna happen in Europe. We know the solution:  A Federated Ukraine.
A stable and whole Ukraine ( exclusive Crimea)
Relations wits Russia and West.
And No NATO membership.   Is it too late?  I don’t know.
In nov 2013 only 20 % of the people in Donbass wanted to split from Ukraine.
Now all want to separate.
Can we still stop a prolongued cold War ?
Can the drift for a hot war be stopped ?

Cohen behandelt de posities van de hoofdsteden:
In Moscow Putin for 100% wants the solution I just mentioned.
I do not agree with Mearsheimer.

In Washington . I voted for Obama twice, but he is weak. He is heavily .. by the hardliners in his own party.  He has made really bad personal remarks about Putin in public. Clearly Putin has gotten under Obama’s skin. ( het zit Obama erg dwars.)

In Berlin mrs Merkel has her own understanding. She understands the situation now I think.  That is why she Works so hard for a solution.  She went to Minsk etc.

Then we have Kiev.
I may not say this in the USA, but I can say it here: Kiev is not a democratic regime. Very bad things are happening, also in the West of Ukraine ! The ultra-nationalism which grows by the day,  tells me that the soution must come from Kiev. Unless Kiev turns to Moscow  or unless the West stops pushing Kiev, I feel we are drifting towards war with Russia..
So that is not an optimistic conclusion.  Thanks.
Katrina vanden Heuvel.  ( editor-publisher of The Nation.) ( Left wing paper)

The Nation was often before its time: we pleaded a peaceful solution for Vietnam in 1954.
Steve Cohen has been writing for The Nation for 20 years.
During Vietnam and during Iraq invasion there were protests. Not today.

What why is it that US progressives support this new cold war ?
We had triumphalisme  in the 90s.
0911 changes US policy for the worse.
If there was justice in the US, then the Neocons who went to Iraq would be somewhere else insrtead of on our tv screens, nowadays.
Liberal interventionists hyjacked the agenda.
Sam Power and S Rice..
This generation …/. Genocide…. Fear ….. McCarthyism is till here.
The Group Thing.
If you …. You wil be called an apologist.
Lets have a bette rus policy. And understand that policing the World is a threat for our security.
39 min.
Much problems come from triumphalism.
The failure to understand what diplomacy means.  Compromise.
The hyjackling has been assisted (prof. Richard Sakwa , univ. Of Kent.)
Clinton is the candidate.
We have arigged system. Econmic. Elisabet Warren speaks
Steve and I were in touch with these leaders.   Some sent a letter to Obama. Don’t send weapons.  Ther eis indifference..
The ISIS factor.  Very dangerous confrontatiuon in Ukr.  W
I am member of the Media.  The nexus between medai and political class is oimportant.
Does Media coverage shape policy , or politics ? Probably both.
There is a false narrative.
Most editorial pages have gone into a fantasy version.
These one sided
MSNBC : looks like Fox. They want more war.
Anti- Russian sentiment. Very big.
Where is the understanding for others?
LGBT etc.  This is used froim the west.
We are at a turning point. Sending weapons woke people up.
We will start an action at The Nation to fight for more ..
Boris Nemtsov: there isa rhush to conclusions.

Lets fight for a political solution. Thank you.


Press Club part 2.   (Brussels,  2 march 2015)

Now about 12 people will get each 3 minutes to speak or ask questions.

1)     Q from MEP Ransdorf: “Mr Mearsheimer, in 1993, state secr. Warren Christopher proposed to Germany ‘shareed Leasdership.’What do you think about that? “

M: “I did not know that, but it is clear that the US does not believe in ‘Shared Leadership.’ The US wants to be hegemon.  Everybody else shopuld danse to its tune: also the Europeans and the Russians. And they do danse to its tune.  Especially England.

The US has been  at war in 2 out of 3 years since 1989.
Our war against ISIS is the sevent war since  then.  The UK also.
The Russians have tried to cooperate with us.

2)     Sakwa.
I came here  very depressed.  Now I feel better, not because it looks better, but I see I am not alone. This crisis was coming for at least 5 years, I have been warninbg for it.
Yalta, 70 years ago,  suggested: the Soviet Union was reckognised as a country that you cvan do bussiness with.
Malta 1989, the meeting with papa Bush : we saw there that a power transitiuon. Gorbachov said: lets jointly enjoy a World of reedom.  He wanted humane democratic socialism.
There was on stenographic notes in Malta.
At Malta we lost a chance to get a good agreement. There was no European person there.
We lived for 25 yewars in a sort of cold war.  There was an extreme collapse of diplomacy.
No wit isfar more dangerous than before.

Who could believe that Europe would mess up so much ! ?
How do we go from here?

A genuine rebirth of European continental vision is necessary.
Hoiuseof Lords report on Eu- Russia relations. : we sleepwalked into

3)      MEP G. Pirinski from Bulgaria.
We need a sort of George Kennan.  Cold war is already getting warm.
Yalta was diplomacy./  Lets get important people together to speak out.
Katrina: important movements comefrom people and movements.
This is an elite driven project !
Each survey shows people do not want this.

4)     Latvia Tatjana Zdanoka
Polls in East Ukr : peace keeping NGO : 20% in favor of being in UKr.
I am nativer Russian speaking.  I repr russian speaking minorities.
This  isan attempt to 
Now is 10 months after Odessa.  
In the Baltics we are scapegoats of the notacception of Baltic states..
Mearsheimer. I diod a lot of research about German killings from 1939 to 1945.
There is little anger aboput it.
In East Asia there is still much more anger to Japanse  ( in China and other victims)
If the anger would come back in Europe towards the Germans,and it would lead to fighting it could be terrible.

5)      MEP J L Schaffhauser.  ( Frankrijk )
We must make a big forum ,with foreigners. Now only the uSA is deciding Foreign Policy.
We must propose Multi-polar World. W find 200 MEP

6)      Ariv Mamadov  Islamic cooperations.
I disagree most : with American policy in ME.  Biggest Cold War is now in ME and N Africa.
Russia and West can work together. Americans shif policies to East.
About arming Ukraine: biggest mistake if they will do that.
Giving arms is declaring war with Russia.
Also Russian adviosors is very stupid.  Russia will see it as war.

Cohen:  From my poit ofview: there can ben o real American secutrity without Russia.
So now I see destruction of American Nat. Security.

How to bring this reality to the World ?
After Malta : they were planning to win over Russia. On ewrote a book about it , 2 years after Malta,.

We ave to face the reality. People coming from the past .( Gorbachoiv ois ill.Papa Bush is in Wheel chair. Kissinger is 91 . The generation that followed them is spoiled by misunderstanding.  Younger Americans comingfrom Reagan movement.  And both parties have betrayed Regans legacy.

We have in the US a 1,5 party system. Nio debate. No diversity of views.
The narrative about WW2 isa wrong.  We think we liberated Europe.

Spielberg and Tom Hanks sponsor it.
Russian fought at the Eastern front.
‘We had to come over to get rid of Hitler for you.
Where Hitlers  war machine was destroyed: in the east.
 30 min:   Cohen: US fought the war in Asia.  Russia won tjhe war in Europe .( not America..)  
I told this to 400 students eqach year, for 40 years., And always they were shocked, unless they had a grandfather who fought in the war.
Young people  in EU still have living histyory.  Not in US. History started yesterday in US..

It is very ghard to have aconversation in US.
Two more points:  we kicked over tomb stones.
Odessa:  we have brought back memories that were forgotten: about atrocities in long times gone.
Odessa was not investigated.
We inUS do not have a sense of these ‘demons.’

If America pivots toAsia, who will it  encvounter in Asia?  Russia.

Now Russia  tuirns to Asia because they lose markest in Europe.  We will meet Russia in Asia again.

It loks like the bad road has been taken.
33 min:
You folks in Europe have to do it.

7)     Lisa Jaakoonvaari, Finland.
What would be the good ideas ? Where can we find common interests? ( We have ISIS, terrorism, climate change.)
About all the initiatives from Putin, the EU always said: No to Putin.  

8)     Fraser Cameron   ( Russia Eu center.
I was there during 90s, but there was no triumfalism. Overwhelming feeling was one of relief.
We brought Russia into the G8.
We supported Yeltsin, because we were afraid of Zhirinovski and… That was wrong.
We did not send the Chicago boys.  They (the Russians)  wanted it themselves.

OSCE is an organisation.  But does not work.
Angela Merkel said to Russia:  OK, you want this: then show it in Transnistrië.
Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine.  But Russian troops stayed there.

39 min. 
My questions to John Mearsheimer and to Stephen Cohen.
We have very  different views about the principles of European peace.

[ Nu gaat Fraser Cameron de essentiele vraag stellen in dit Ukraïne conflict:
Welke van de twee politieke stromingen, politieke 'waarden' moet primeren:
1. Het feit dat elk volk zelfbeschikkingsrecht heeft. ( een ideaal voor bijna alle mensen.)  Of:
2. Het feit dat grote machten altijd een kring met landen om zich heen hebben waar ze - als puntje bij paaltje zou komen-  de baas zijn, of waar toch minimaal 'de Grote Vijand' niks te zeggen heeft.
Amerika maakt uitentreure reklame voor optie 1, en zegt dat optie 2 uit de vorige eeuw stamt. Maar Amerika heeft nu juist haar 'invloedssfeer' enorm uit gebreid sinds 1945, en Ukraïne is daar een voorbeeld van! Ook Libië en Irak behoren nu - tegen de zin van die volkeren-  tot de invloedssfeer van de VS. ]  
(1) Do you think that in Europe we should have a Security system based on individual choice of citizens, in a democracy? 
(2) Or do you think it should be decided by a sphereo of influence, and to hell what the citizens think. ?!

Question for Katrine. OK US media did a terrible job. But what you think of Russian media?

( Mearsheimer and Cohen give answer to this important question from minute 50 onwards.. ) 

Doctorow: Triumfalism is not subjectivism.. Papa Bush made the comment that America won the cold war.

9)     Daniel Stevens. 
KvK in  Belgie voor Rusland.
In reply to First question.  US point of view is the leader.
At end of USSR,World became one pole.

10)  La Bruyere. European external action service.  Strategic planning division, Belgium.

La Bruyere is angry at America: they spent 5 billion $ (5000 million! $)  to make publicity for ‘the better life in the west’ and for ‘democracy’’, but La Bruyere  doubts :  
1. If the Americans can ‘deliver’ ( = make life for Ukraine people better, as they promise)  and 
2. If the Americans are at all interested in the quality of life for the Ukrainians. ( This is not what La Bruyere says, but I think it is what he thinks. )

Also:  La Bruyere was present with talks with the Russians, years ago, in Vienna. 
The Russians came with serious and good proposals for ‘security’ beteen Russia and the West. 
But the instruction from the Americans was always: ‘We keep talking to them, to give the impression that we take their proposals serious, but we will never agree on their porposals."  

La Bruyere says: the same tactic was done in Minsk. Russia had serious and good proposals, but  the Europeans were probably instructed by the Americans to not accept those.  

  ( This is my interpretation of what he says. )

La Bruyere  agrees that there is a hybrid war in Ukraine, which means that Russians are fighting in Donbass. But, he says; the alternative would be the Total invasion of Donbass.  That would be very bad. So he thinks the Russians should not be blamed for their presence in Donbass.

49 min.
John Mearsheimer gives some answers.
Fraser said: ‘West was not triumphalist ‘.
M: I do not agree. George Kennan did it very smart. Did not rub their noses in it. (in de nederlaag). 
We were filled with the belief that we had a superior culture. Fukuyama wrote: We are the best. The end of History. (We hebben definitief gewonnen. Ons systeem is het best.) 
The rest of the World would follow us. We were triumfalist in a subtle way at the elite level.

About: democracy  versus   Spheres of influence.
Most westerners will agree with you and prefer democracy.
We love Democracy, in the west. And we promote it all the time.
And speheres of Interest, John Kerry thinks that this is a 19 th century concept. As if the whole World thinks that way. But that is not true. Great powers do care about their Sphere of interest. The Russians care greatly about their security. About the balance of power. They have made it very clear since the 1990s that Nato expansion was unacceptable to them and if Nato would go to their borders that this would cause a big problem. I do not understand why the Americans cannot understand this.  You know, there is the Monroe Doctrine. It says: no distant Great Power would be allowed in the Western Hemisphere. And if some power would ( enter the American hemisphere)   the US would go ballistic (=  throw nuclear missiles) . Remember the Cuba crisis.
There is no way that 20 or 30 years down the road China can form a military alliance with Canada or Mexico. No way. Why? Because the western hemisphere is our sphere of influence. Period.

So: Why cannot Putin have a sphere of influence? And when people like you tell the Ukrainians that they are a democratic state and that they have sovereignty, and that they have the right to decide whatever they want to do on foreign policy, you are in effect leading them down the primrose path ( leading them to a course of action that seems easy and appropriate but can actually end in calamity.)  
Because we are not going to help them !  
What is happening now: Ukraine is being destroyed. 
And Ukrainian leaders think they have the right , they are democrats, to choose which side they are on.
 They do not have the right any more than Cuba had the right to invite the Soviet Union into the Western hemisphere, any more than Taiwan today having the right to declare its independance. The same with Canada and Mexico. 
It is just the way the World works. And if you are not realistic about this, you lead people down the primrose path ( met mooie beloften over een - aanvankelijk- bloemrijk en romantisch pad naar de hel leiden) .  

53.28 min.
Stephen Cohen:  
I have a more beningn view of what you (Fraser Cameron) said, in the sense that you raise the right questions. These are the questions that need debate. My answer to you would be as empathic as prof Mearsheimers. Because I see things the way he does. The reality is… and I remember this because my wife and I were in Moscow.. Papa Bush was a kind of a traditional figure … he was torn both ways, and when the polls showed that he was loosing to Clinton, he claimed that we won the cold war. And we were in Moscow , and Gorbachov heard this, and he felt so betrayed, so betyrayed,  and he said to us: “Do you think Reagan feels that way ? “ because he always said that Bush and Reagan and Thatcher were his great partners. [ … ]
So, you know I agree with you there was a turning point , but if you want to know .. 
I dont know how exposed you were to American ‘mass opinion’ in those days , but if you want to know the reality of what Washington was thinking, all you have to do is read Strobe Talbott’s memoirs. I will use a word that I am not allowed to use in the US media , but Clinton said: ‘that Strobe wanted to shuv more  shit down Boriss’s throat’ ( Yeltsin). 
That was the policy: shuvving shit down Boris Yeltsin’s throat.    
This was the idea. Why they had this idea, I don’t know. 
Now you do make an importan point about people, democracy, media. Let me formulate this.
To take John’s point to another level: Nato says that every country that qualifies – and the qualification seems like an accordeon: variable—has a right to join Nato.
I don’t think so.
Nato is a security organisation, Not an American College Fraterny. 
The essential criteria for joining is weather it increases or decreases our security.
Expansion must help our security.

And if you let Ukraine in, it will lead to war with Russia. 
If your idea of security is getting to a war with nuclear Russia, 
then by all means bring Ukraine in. 

An alarming sign was in 2008 with Georgia.   
Saakashvili was made believe that we would be there for him,. And we were not. Let me think about Nato. And I am sure that Nato is not gonna be abolished, but the understanding of membership – if it is a security organisation – is weathe it is a plus or a minus for security.  And we have had 15 years of learning. And expanding Nato towards Russia is a negative for security.  We are now in the worst security situation since the Cuba crisis.

One last point about the Russian media. Katrina and I were busy with soviet dissidents long tiomne ago. We had our visa’s taken away by Russia, because we were too busy with dissidents. But we do beleive we pay attentionto the voices in Russia. But it is not our job to win their political battles.
Russiand did notvcome to help American black folks, they diod not come and help amnerican gays, we do it ourselves, and Russian do it themselves.  
One last thing. I do not look much tv. But I read the texts on tv, there is more criticism on Putin’s Ukrainian policy in Russia than there is in the American press of American policy. That makes me very very unhappy. Not because of Russia, but because of us.

Katryn  vanden Heuvel.
Richard Sakwa remondeus of the older times. We should take up making good relations with Russia again. The Greeks may help us there.,

Doctorow thanks everybody.,

No comments:

Post a Comment