Hour Two
Tuesday 17 April 2018/ Hour 2, Block A: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; American Committee for East-West Accord; author: Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, & The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag after Stalin; in re: JB: Have recently left Cracow, within driving distance of Ukraine, and flown to Israel; in both places, among the hottest conflict zones on Earth. Here in Middle East, Russia has good relations with Kurds, Turks, Israelis, Syrians, Egyptians — everyone. Drone sent over Golan I to Israel. Then 80&% of Russian people approved war in Ukraine. . . . Poles are fiercely anti-Russian, ready to go to war; Ukrainians also ready to join the Poles. New cold war, also in cyberspace: routine for US to speak of Russian troll factories or troll armies. FBI head says the US president is a blackmail victim of the Russians.
SFC: Sounds as though you, I, and Comey are all troll victims. Had you been in Southeastern Ukraine, you would have seen a different [POV] on Russia. Cuban missile crisis of 1962: it was an iconic event; we were supposed to earn all manner of survival lessons. . . . Seems as though the lessons of yesteryear are vaporized during this new cold war; esp when the Trump Adm decided to launch those missiles on 7 April; we came close to a new missile crisis. Recall that Putin & Defense Min and Foreign Min said that Russia would strike back if installations were attacked if any US attack either killed any Russia (some were killed by US-backed proxy fighters; Russia stood down, but said it if it happened again Russia wd strike back at US troops and launcher); also, on 1 March Putin said Russia wd protect its allies, being above all Syria, specifically Damascus.
Tuesday 17 April 2018/ Hour 2, Block B: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; American Committee for East-West Accord; author: Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, & The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag after Stalin; in re: The airstrike by France, UK and Washington: successful? An escalation one more time? This is escalation. How did we get to that moment? Let’s recall that since winning the presidency Trump has been hectored daily about not being tough enough against Russia; and the Russiagate crowd keeps moving the end zone, where the goal is war. As a result, Trump has been in effect trapped into a contradictory Russia policy: sends arms to Ukraine, agrees to some sanctions then reverses; then pushes back against Haley at the UN.
In the Skirpal affair in England, it was alleged that Russians tried to kill a former Russian spy with a nerve agent – and no proof ever offered. The official story presented by Theresa May has fallen apart as her own labs said it couldn’t identify the agent and said it wasn’t lethal since the two didn't die and are being released from hospital.
. . . Pres Trump has been heavily pressed to do something against Assad.
Tuesday 17 April 2018/ Hour 2, Block C: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; American Committee for East-West Accord; author: Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, & The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag after Stalin; in re: On 13-14 April, the attack: the attack did not wait for the evidence. Was it destroyed during the attacks? Dunno – skimpy info on what was attacked. Now we have the alleged crime by Assad of using chlorine gas against his own people;
Trump had proposed a US-Russia summit to discuss the new nuclear weapons each possesses. It was clear all along that Trump did not want to launch the missiles. Note that it was a grand coalition of two – France and UK. Mattis did not support the strikes. Trump and the Kremlin wanted to avoid a Cuban missile crisis–style event. So US warned Russia that the strike was coming and what would be struck. Russians are embedded with Syrians; we told them to get out of there. In preliminary reports, no one was killed; except in Israeli strikes against the Iranian base on the other side of Damascus.
Today, anent the US strike, no Syrians were killed. Stuck a “chemical facility” – nothing important was struck. I conclude this was for show, done for domestic US political reasons. Politics pure and simple. Americans went out of their way not to cross Putin’s red lines. What does this tell us?
That this reckless policy toward the other nuclear superpower is being driven by US domestic politics and thing more. That Stormy Daniels is of more importance to the [anti-Trumpers] than is the risk of nuclear war. Trump was traduced. Might mean that Trump isn’t strong enough to resist, must prove his innocence with acts of war. His campaign promise to work smoothly with Russia has been [largely abandoned]. There are at least four members of Congress preparing to speak out. Sen Paul? Umm.
If you speak in favor of dialogue, you're condemned, Or, diplomacy has been criminalized. A far as I can tell, Trump doesn’t have top aides favoring détente with Russia; instead, he has Haley and Pompeo, war mongers. He seems to be a very alone president in Russia policy.
Tuesday 17 April 2018/ Hour 2, Block D: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; American Committee for East-West Accord; author: Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, & The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag after Stalin; in re: Crisis of new cold war grows deeper. What would work now to lean toward rapprochement? Not sure; tonight marks the completion of our four years of this discussion. Our new cold war with Russia is much ore dangerous than was the previous one: hot war possibilities – Ukraine, Syria, and a new factor: since I was small, the American resident has been empowered to speak with Russia to avoid war, beginning with Eisenhower – but not Trump, who’s under [threat]of being called soft on Russia. Kennedy was free to negotiate with Russia to avoid nuclear war. If we get into such a crisis now, where war with Russia looms wd Pres Trump be free to negotiate with Pres Putin? I think not. We're in greater danger now than we’ve ever been. For lack of a better word, so far, Putin has been a moderate.
The war party in the Kremlin. There will be a next time.
