The killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani, produced an avalanche of media coverage–reporting, opinion and mixtures of the two. Yet how deep an impression it… Read More »Blog No. 245. Killing Soleimani: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The atmosphere between the United States and North Korea has improved remarkably since the time not long ago when North Korea was testing long-range missiles… Read More »Blog No. 178. The North Korea Summit: High Stakes or Low Stakes?
On April 17, President Obama called for “creative negotiations” that would allow the Iranian negotiators “to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.” He might have added that negotiations will have to be at least as creative to find a formula that will also acceptable to the American body politic. Critics of the previously announced framework might be forgiven for describing the process as “creative cosmetology in porcine beautification” aka putting lipstick on a pig. We would not be quite so harsh, but remain skeptical that the agreement with Iran, whatever its final terms might be, will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. At the same time, we are also skeptical that rejecting the agreement, or attempting to significantly renegotiate its basic terms, would be any more effective in seeking that end.
Read More »Blog No. 66 The Iran Framework: Squaring the Circle or Creative Cosmetology?
It sometimes appears that the capacity of Congressional Republicans for self-embarrassment is inexhaustible. Most often it is the Republicans in the House who are the mischief-makers while their colleagues in the Senate, with some notable exceptions (see, Cruz, T.), offer a measure of maturity. In the case of the letter to Iran, however, it was the Senate Republicans who provided the “What were they thinking of?” moment.Read More »Blog No. 62 The GOP Letter to Iran and the Road Ahead
RINOcracy.com has been reluctant to add its voice to the cacophony of comment and opinion on the Ukraine crisis, much of it from sources far more knowledgeable than we. Yet it seemed there might be a point to putting down in one place what seem to be the principal issues:
1. Is the annexation of Crimea reversible?
2. Does the occupation and subsequent annexation of Crimea foreshadow a similar incursion into, and possible annexation of, eastern Ukraine?
3. Does Ukraine have the military capacity to resist a Russian incursion into eastern Ukraine or beyond? Should the United States and NATO provide military assistance to Ukraine and, if so, what kind?
4. How serious a threat do the Russian actions in Ukraine represent to other nations of eastern Europe?
5. What is the purpose of economic sanctions and what effect will they have?
6. What is the likelihood of our being drawn into direct involvement in an armed conflict in Europe? If that should occur, are we sufficiently prepared militarily and politically?
The ultimate question is suggested by the statement of NATO Secretary Rasmussen, in Washington on March 19. Calling the Ukraine crisis a wake-up call for NATO, he observed that, “We live in a different world than we did less than a month ago.” The question is whether we are prepared to deal with that different world.
2014. Russia annexes the Ukrainian region of Crimea, after Russian troops invade and the area votes to secede from Ukraine. The vote and annexation is condemned internationally. The Economist, Mar 20th 2014, K.N.C., P.K. and A.C.M.