contributors
Michael Averko
A New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic
all articles
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.
The aftermath of the last Putin-Trump meeting in Helsinki, saw top heavy anti-Russian and anti-Putin theatrics, which stand in the way of improved relations.
The modern political lexicon includes a host of terms that are ironically applied, given how they can be applied to those who use them against others.