A New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.
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.
The lack of mainstream Russian perspectives in Anglo-American mass media serves to nurture the anti-Russian bigotry which has been evident.
As the UN Security Council discussed Kosovo, the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a non-binding pro-Kiev regime resolution on the Azov Sea.
Russia is the only country that has held open talks with the governments of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria and the US.
When compared to the leading hardcore Russophobes, Michael McFaul comes across more as being a diva, seeking to maintain a niche within the anti-Russian leaning US establishment.
Foreign policy recommendations are influenced by a given mindset – something quite evident when listening to Hadley and Morrell. On Russia-related matters, their views unfortunately dominate the US political establishment.