contributors
Michael Averko
A New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.
all articles
Since being in office, Trump’s Russia-related policies have calmed the Russia-unfriendly slant in the Republican establishment.
The coronavirus pandemic has given Russia bashing a new twist. As was true beforehand, the latest edition of disparaging Russia is short on conclusive supporting facts.
There’ve been ongoing propaganda pieces that skirt over some inconvenient realities, for those seeking to unfairly admonish Russia in the Olympic movement.
There’re credible reports indicating that World Athletics has an inconsistent worldwide drug testing regimen, Michael Averko writes.
Tony Wesolowsky’s December 8, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) article “The Vlasov Army: Nazi Sympathizers Or WWII Freedom Fighters?”, leads to some additional thoughts.
The fact that someone can have a pro-American or pro-Russian stance, without coordinating their views with a government doesn’t omit the possibility of such a person periodically interacting with government or government-connected people.
Say what you want about Trump, on Russian related matters he appears more reasonable than his neocon and neolib leaning critics, with their hot air innuendo, which hasn’t and ultimately will not weaken Russia.
On Russia-related matters, the more sane among us can perhaps be forgiven for becoming sedated by the kind of absurdities regularly spewed by some high profile individuals. The realist wing of the US foreign policy establishment has at times held back in rebuking this reality.
In the post-Soviet period, US foreign policy and media establishments have overhyped Ukrainian positives, while disproportionately highlighting the negatives in Russia and Belarus, Michael Averko writes.
Trump should be rightfully criticized for contradicting the not as aggressive foreign policy (when compared to the neocons and neolibs) which he supported during his presidential campaign.