A conversation with the Cato Institute’s Ted Galen Carpenter

Let’s engage in a thought experiment. Suppose that Ukraine was headed by a pro-Russia regime. After repeated failed attempts at assassination by the CIA, the Pentagon finally decides to invade Ukraine for the purpose of bringing about regime change — i.e., ousting the pro-Russia regime from power and replacing it with a pro-U.S. regime.

The American people are being misled by a host of government officials, media, and academic outlets. One of hundreds of other similar examples one could present to demonstrate this argument is the DC-based ‘Institute for the Study of War’ (ISW) headed by the wife of well-known American neo-conservative Frederick Kagan.

The New York-based Council on Foreign Relations held a videoconference on May 31 titled Russia’s War in Ukraine: How does it end? The president of the think tank Richard Haas chaired the panel of distinguished participants — Stephen Hadley, Prof. Charles Kupchan, Alina Polyakova and Lt. Gen. (Retd) Stephen Twitty. It was a great discussion dominated by the liberal internationalist stream that has so far guided President Biden’s national security team, which wants to help Ukraine fight a long war against Russia.

A lasting settlement must recognize that this conflict will not end with the withdrawal of Russian troops.

Severodonetsk to fall to Russian forces in coming days while ‘who lost Ukraine?’ debate starting in Washington

Soldiers and volunteers in Bakhmut, Ukraine, are fatigued as the front with Russia moves ‘closer and closer’

One hundred days of all-out war has been plenty of time to get acquainted with the Russian troops.

Americans increasingly wonder where US involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war is heading. Although this nation is not officially in the fight, it is a belligerent in all but name. US officials have essentially declared war on the Russian Federation and its president, Vladimir Putin.

The White House may say it wants diplomacy but its actions — sending more advanced weapons — could have the opposite effect.