Category Archives: Foreign affairs

A Few Links on the ISIS Situation

We probably haven’t been covering this ISIS situation as much as we should have. Here are a couple of links.

This article by Justin Raimondo demonstrates the foolishness of us supporting any side in this Middle Eastern mess. Beheaded Journalist Steven Sotloff was allegedly sold to ISIS by moderates in Syria that we support. What fools we are.

Here is Raimondo on the President’s less than inspiring ISIS speech.

Here is Andrew Bacevich suggesting that Obama is missing the point. He is right. Read the article. I don’t want to give away the main point because I think it is important and something I want to elaborate on in detail in the future.

The Rand Apple Continues to Roll Further and Further from the Tree

Rand assures us, in Time no less, that he’s not one of those awful isolationists.

Yes Rand, we get it. You are not your daddy, which is why I’m still looking for a candidate to support in 2016.

Ron Paul was a great Congressman, but I’m beginning to doubt his parenting skills. He obviously didn’t spank Rand enough.

Steven Seagal is Da Man!

Steven Seagal, who has spoken out before in defense of Russia and Putin, played a gig in Crimea recently that was allegedly pro-separatist.

…Seagal played a weekend concert in the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, appearing on a stage adorned with the flag of pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine.

See more here…

The Russia/Ukraine situation is complicated. Ethnic Ukrainians have a reason to be sore at and distrustful of Russia, but the problem is that Ukraine, like so many other countries, is too large and attempts to keep unlike elements together in a political alliance that is unnatural. Separation of the more Russian Eastern parts of Ukraine is probably the most natural outcome.

But whatever you may think about the Russia/Ukraine situation, you have to admit that Seagal has some serious nads. Publicly supporting Putin and Russia is not a popular position, and he is taking a risk by doing so.

The Neocons vs. Rand Paul’s Reading List

The Neocons clearly have Rand Paul in their cross hairs.

Now they are going after him for his suggested reading list.

Here is the initial Weekly Standard article.

The Washinton Free Beacon, which apparently specializes in neocon thought enforcement, ran this Weekly Standard inspired hit piece.

Tom Woods has replied to the Free Beacon piece here, in the sarcastic way that he has perfected.

The neoconservatives over at the Free Beacon, a thought-monitoring website in the mold of ThinkProgress on the left, took time out of their customary schedule of spreading Islamic radicalism around the world to criticize Rand Paul for recommending a few books on foreign policy whose conclusions are not “USA! USA!” and “they hate us for our awesomeness.”

I hope to have more to say on this issue later, but I wanted to get a quick post up now.

The Ron Paul Institute is Moving to Texas

Great news! The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity has moved from its former location in Washington, D.C.’s Virginia suburbs down to its new headquarters in Clute, Texas. The Institute is setting up its office next door to Ron Paul’s FREE Foundation and not far from the Ron Paul Channel.

What a relief to escape the corrupt corridors of Mordor! A beachhead of peace and liberty is expanding in south Texas. And if you’re wondering why Texas and not D.C., it is because we are not trying to play nice with the Beltway elites. Our audience is informed readers like yourself, who continue to question the pablum served up by politicians and the mainstream media.

The move down to Texas means that the Institute will be working much more closely with its founder and CEO, Dr. Ron Paul. A book is on the near horizon as well as a couple of other media-related projects. And of course, the Institute will continue its main focus: bringing hard-hitting analysis of important news events that readers will not see in the mainstream media. As people continue to turn off the mainstream media, we want to be the resource they turn to.

Dr. Paul has also invited more Ron Paul Institute participation in the Ron Paul Channel — what a great new way to get our message out!

Read more here…

I have mixed feelings about this. I’m sure the move is a good thing for the reasons stated above, but DC really does need a non-interventionist presence. This is not a criticism, because everyone has there niche, it’s just an observation. If the Institutes audience is us readers, then it is doing a lot of preaching to the choir. Non-interventionism needs someone in the fray attempting to influence the debate. National politicians already have many organized voices pulling on their ear. There are very few organized voices for non-intervention countering that message.

Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Blasts US For Incompetence In Iraq

Maybe this interview will cause Catholic pundits like Michael Novak and George Weigel to take notes, and do a lot of earnest soul-searching about having supported the neoconservative foreign policy program.

The Americans were here and made many mistakes. The present situation is their fault. Why replace a regime with a situation that is worse? That happened after 2003. The Americans deposed a dictator. But at least back then under Saddam Hussein we had security and work. And what do we have now? Confusion, anarchy and chaos. The same thing happened in Libya and Syria.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath.  Novak & Co. are at least as likely to accuse the patriarch of flirting with bigotry, since he makes the “racist” claim that “[i]t is impossible to establish here a democracy on the Western model.”

Personally, I think His Excellency errs in criticizing the West’s lack of interest in the situation.  Were I in his shoes, the last thing I’d want is more deranged Western busybodies poking their noses into Iraq.  In lamenting the flight of Christians from the troubled region and warning that “[o]ur identity is threatened,” the patriarch reveals that he doesn’t really understand his Anglo counterparts.  A few honorable exceptions aside, American Catholic leaders are no different from other members of the Western political elite, in that they see the elimination of inherited identity and historic community as a good thing.  Hoo-ray diversity!

Will Putin Save the Ukraine?

Russia has long been one of the great hopes of two overlapping groups: white racial nationalists and Christian traditionalists. Russia is one of the few European/Colonial polities that doesn’t enact anti-white policies. It’s large and powerful. And it’s conservative, traditional, and authentically Christian. Additionally, Russia was able to defeat the Neocon-backed Chechnyan terrorists/secessionists, prevent war in Syria, and at other times defy and even defeat Neocons, Neocons are of course sworn enemies of remnant real Americans. Where American power serves evil causes, there’s usually a Neocon at the helm, so busy writing history and so full of hate that he hasn’t time to think on just what in the Hell he’s doing.

Yes, Russia suffers from corruption and many ills, has many faults. Yes, the US Far Right (true Right) has largely opposed every war and foreign intervention since Vietnam, which it should have also opposed. (One noteworthy addition: We rightfully supported Pinochet’s coup.)

So, returning: Russia was one of our great hopes, and Putin enjoyed a positive reputation, globally, for thwarting Obama’s war with Syria. Then the Neocons score a victory with the violent expulsion of the President of The Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Neocons support democracy only when their candidate wins. Following this revolution, which shifts control of the Ukraine away from Russia and towards the EU, Putin takes Crimea and is portrayed as a bad guy.

Today, we have conflict between pro-Russian and anti-Russian Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are ultra-nationalist; the Russians have embraced condemning “racism”, accusing the Ukrainians of genocide, of dehumanising Russian-Ukrainians for not being white enough.

Regardless of who is right or wrong in this conflict, results include: Russians are now firmly anti-racist, Ukrainian-Russian hatred is hot, and conservative whites throughout the world are sharply divided, often siding with the Ukrainians. I clearly side more with the Russians.

I don’t like seeing traditional people fighting in general, provided they’re within their rightful lands; but I especially don’t like seeing whites fighting whites. Nationalists have long argued that nationalism is inward looking, peaceful. All of our work is seemingly undone with this ethnic strife. We see nationalism in power; but rather than resolving ethnic division with peaceful secession, it wants bloodshed. The wider nationalist movement’s dream is to preserve Europe, not to expand one piece at the expense of another.

Some of us suspect the Ukrainian nationalists are merely acting as tools of the Neocons. It wouldn’t be the first time conservatives/nationalists fell for propaganda and served their enemies. The greater impact of the Ukrainian nationalists seems to be the destruction of the wider nationalist pro-white movement. And I should add: For every Ukrainian who condemns Russians for being mixed, there’s an Englishman who views Ukrainians as mixed. If Nordicism has accepted European preservation, Ukrainian nationalists should also drop their territorial ambitions.

As foreigners it’s difficult to know what news is true, but Russia Today reports that Ukrainians are wanting to genocide Russian-Ukrainians from within the borders of the Ukraine. As I understand it, Russian-Ukrainians are about a third of the population, maybe more.

Is Putin going to save the Ukraine? If he enters with military force, will conservatives in Europe and America grow to hate Russia? Will Russia embrace an anti-racist ideology in reaction? Will Russia’s economy be crushed with sanctions and Putin driven from power?

Russia is moving in the wrong direction, away from preservation, and this conflict is confusing conservatives. The Right has never been good at thinking. We’re good at following tradition, upholding duty. This Ukraine-Russia conflict makes nationalism appear violent rather than inward looking and traditional and is generally not good for the wider pan-nationalist movement,

An additional risk: The Identitarian debate between Christians and pagans previously concluded in favour of the Christians. If “Ukrainian nationalists” take to battling “Russian Christians”, we risk a reversal of this outcome.

If 25% Irish, Dual-Citizenship Obtainable

From what I’ve heard today, this appears to be true: If one is 25% Irish, or Ulster Irish, and can easily prove it; Irish citizenship is easily obtainable. Irish embassy link: “Citizenship through descent“. Also note the FAQ, “What is Citizenship by Descent?

In my case, I can easily prove being 25% Ulster Irish via great-grandparents. Though most of the rest of me is from Ireland’s eastern neighbor, albeit much earlier, the United Kingdom has no similar policy.

Why seek this? Identity.

As an American, I’m of mixed heritage. I have some French, English, Scottish in me; and most of my folks have been here since well prior to America’s independence. As such, it would be harmful to Ireland were I to move there. But I like the idea of dual-citizenship while residing in the US, for the sake of identity. As America grows increasingly diverse, such heritage might be the only thing keeping us grounded and sane.

Those, like myself, who are not fully Irish shouldn’t move there. Europe should preserve what identity it has left. But dual-citizenship sounds positive.

On a related topic: The claim that Europe’s affairs don’t concern us is false. Europe’s affairs might be argued as more important to us than are our own affairs. Without roots, a man is poor.

Fascinating Interview of Aleksandr Dugin by Vladimir Pozner

I’m not entirely sure what to make of controversial Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. What I am pretty sure of is that this interview refutes the claim that Russia is substantively less free than America.

Can anybody imagine Steve Sailer getting interviewed by Katie Couric?  Donald Livingston by Dan Rather?

Tony Blair Blames Non-Intervention for Iraqi Chaos

From Tony Blair’s website:

Highlights:

Tony Blair: However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria. To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.

My comment: In other words, US support for the Syrian rebels has ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists. The Iraqi militants are also Sunni, Blair and Obama’s allies against Assad.

Tony Blair: Already the security agencies of Europe believe our biggest future threat will come from returning fighters from Syria. There is a real risk that Syria becomes a haven for terrorism worse than Afghanistan in the 1990s. But think also of the effect that Syria is having on the Lebanon and Jordan. There is no way this conflagration was ever going to stay confined to Syria. I understand all the reasons following Afghanistan and Iraq why public opinion was so hostile to involvement. Action in Syria did not and need not be as in those military engagements. But every time we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will ultimately be greater.

Tony Blair: The moderate and sensible elements of the Syria Opposition should be given the support they need; Assad should know he cannot win an outright victory; and the extremist groups, whether in Syria or Iraq, should be targeted, in coordination and with the agreement of the Arab countries. However unpalatable this may seem, the alternative is worse.

My comment: Assad is an enemy of al-Qaeda! He is supported by the Christians and other minorities within Syria. It is Blair and Obama who have supported the Sunni terrorists. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. Assad is not Sunni.

——-

Additional:

Tony Blair: The first is there was no WMD risk from Saddam and therefore the casus belli was wrong. What we now know from Syria is that Assad, without any detection from the West, was manufacturing chemical weapons. We only discovered this when he used them.

My comment: It remains unproven who used the WMD. Assad certainly had nothing to gain from it: The timing was worst-possible for Assad, with UN inspectors to review it.

This is another example of how Blair etc. write a false history and of how vital it is to record a true history, based on facts. While perfect objectivity is impossible, wilful propaganda is inexcusable. Blair would have us teach outright lies to future generations of children.

Tony Blair: In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.

My comment: Again, support has been given to the rebels, who are Sunni.

Tony Blair: Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.

My comment: Again, this is speculative, unfounded.

Tony Blair: I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it.

My comment: 9/11 would have been prevented had US immigration policy been enforced. The hijackers were in the US illegally.

Not only is the border crisis worse today, but the US has imported Muslim refugees since then. US policy has once again made matters worse since 9/11.

Tony Blair: It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations.

My comment: Here’s an easy solution: Deport them and cease importing more!

Can Someone Convince Rep. John Duncan to Run for President?

Rep. Duncan, along with Rep. Walter Jones, are just about the only two* national level elected Republicans who are willing to proclaim the non-interventionist message. Neither have perfect voting records from my standpoint, but Duncan has paleo ties and is, as best as I recall, also solid against trade deals. Could Duncan perhaps revive the old paleo Buchananite coalition?

*Justin Amash is perhaps another one, but I don’t really hear him speak much on foreign policy unless I’m missing something. He’s good on the security state though.

The text of the speech is available here.

Baffled by Bergdahl?

Is anyone else as baffled by this Bergdahl affair as I am? Regardless of whether Bergdahl is a regular POW or a deserter, to me, the Obama Administration comes off looking stupid and incompetent, because the speculation that he was a deserter was already out there as a prominent part of the public record, so how could the Administration not have anticipated some negative reaction? At the least they should have acknowledged that there were questions and that they would be properly investigated on his return.

Tom Fleming discusses this strange case here.

Our old friend Sean Scallon seems upset by the rush to judgement, and I agree that Bergdahl shouldn’t be definitively declared guilty by Obama’s critics before an investigation and +/- a trial, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the Administration was stupid to not have seen this coming. Here is the comment I posted at Chronicles:

Sean, I’m not sure I understand your point. The Obama Administration had to be aware of the Daily Mail story that Dr. Fleming refers to. I’m baffled by this. The Admin seems to not have anticipated the backlash. But given the highly partisan nature of things these days, how could they not have? And doesn’t the fact that they “forgot” to inform Congress not suggest they might have known they were going to get pushback? It makes the skeptic in me think that they might have REALLY needed to get Bergdahl back for some reason. But even if that is the case, why they didn’t just withhold judgment and say that there would be an investigation instead of acting as if they had just secured the release of Jeremiah Denton is beyond me.

 

Oh No! Putin is a Mean Evil Sexist!

Here is even more reason for us to bomb Russia. Putin is a sexist! He dissed Queen Hillary. I know, I know, it’s outrageous, isn’t it? It’s the year 2014. No country should have to endure having a sexist for a leader. We must commence bombing immediately and liberate the people of Russia from this knuckle-dragging menace to the modern mind.

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a blistering response to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comparison of his actions in Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler leading up to World War II in a television interview that aired Wednesday.

Putin accused Clinton of not being the most elegant speaker and made remarks implying women in general are not well-suited to politics.

“It’s better not to argue with women. But Ms Clinton has never been too graceful in her statements,” Putin said in a French television interview Wednesday.

Putin went on to suggest Clinton was weak and make more disparaging comments about her gender.

“Still, we always met afterwards and had cordial conversations at various international events. I think even in this case we could reach an agreement,” said Putin. “When people push boundaries too far, it’s not because they are strong but because they are weak. But maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman.”

Read more here…

Russia’s Upper House Passes “Blogger Bill” to Regulate Speech Online

From Russia Today:

Russia’s Federation Council has passed the bill introducing obligations for maintainers of popular blogs, roughly similar to the existing rules for mass media.

The new bill introduces a definition of ‘blogger’ to Russian legislation. Popular blogs, defined as those that have 3,000 or more visitors per day, will have to register on a special list maintained by the consumer rights agency Rospotrebnadzor, and follow certain rules.

The authors will have to sign the posts with their real name and verify the information they publish. They will also be banned from posting extremist and terrorist information, propagating pornography or violence, and disclosing state or commercial secrets and personal data of citizens. Popular bloggers will not be able to use obscene language and will face some other restrictions, such as a ‘day of silence’ ahead of elections.

At the same time bloggers receive the right to make official inquiries and for commercial activities – they can have advertising in their posts and receive money for it.

I’m an American. Russia is foreign to me. But the Russian Federation appears to be at a crossroads. Does it wish to be a pious, Christian polity, flowering as the US fades? Or does it choose to become an oppressive, Orwellian state?

A bill like this strikes me as a dangerous approach towards Orwell and the Gulag. Who defines “extremism”? Liberalism has its limits, but free speech is vital for a healthy polity.

Update:

Speaking at the Wednesday session of the Russian upper house, Vladimir Kolokoltsev said that the most worrying thing about extremism was the modern tendency to involve young people in such movements. The police are aware of this trend and have repeatedly thwarted radicals’ attempts to infiltrate communities of football fans and to instigate various illegal actions.

Source: “Stem ethnic extremism by criminalizing internet provocations – minister”. Russia Today.

From Orwell’s 1984:

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Are we entering an era of Orwellian empire A vs. Orwellian empire B?

Ukraine: Who Benefits?

Background: Under Putin, Russia has moved right, and with the move garnered popularity among America’s Far-Right.

The Ukraine conflict, however, pits Russians against “fascist” Ukrainians, pulling Russians away from conservative ideas.

And in America, the conflict distracts conservatives from the looming immigration amnesty that’s being pushed through the House, by both parties. The Ukraine conflict furthermore divides less-informed conservative Americans from conservative Putin, whom they blame for the conflict; and the conflict unites natives with immigrants, “[diverse] Americans” against “[diverse] Russians”.

In short: The spirit of Cosmopolitanism wins.

We might not be able to save the Ukraine from Washington’s meddling, but we can perhaps thwart amnesty. The National Defense Authorization Act is up for vote next week. It could contain amnesty, according to NumbersUSA. How did a foreign affairs post turn to immigration? Immigration is the most relevant to American interests. D.C. threatens all of us, but it threatens America most with amnesty.

The North Worth Saving” by Dr. Trifkovic (Serbian) is worth reading for those here seeking a geopolitical view that makes sense. Such isn’t a call for uniting politically. It’s simply a view of common interests, common civilisation, common people.

BNP European Election Fund Raiser

From the BNP:

[W]e have all the £5,000-a-time deposits for all the English regional seats and a truly amazing donation of £2,000 from one patriot has guaranteed us standing in Scotland as well!

Wales is the only country in doubt; and if you want to make the difference of a full country having the chance to vote BNP, we need £5,000 for Wales in the next 4 days! Can we do it? Is there anyone who can jump up to this last challenge and we will have a full slate in every country?

The less principled UKIP has of recent fallen in popularity, granting the BNP an opportunity to reassert itself this 22nd of May. Under Nick Griffin’s leadership, the BNP has upheld Christian values (not the same as zealotry) amidst a growing atheist culture, opposed immigration, and fought to improve the quality of life for all Britons.

Putin is credited with defeating the neocons in Syria, but Nick Griffin played an important role as well. It was Griffin, and other BNP, who flew to Syria to help draft a letter which successfully convinced MPs to vote against allowing Prime Minister David Cameron to bomb Syria. In the words of Griffin, the letter helped “undo, to at least a small extent, the deliberate dehumanisation policy of Western pro-war propaganda”.

Griffin drew attention to the Islamic grooming of very young English girls for prostitution years before the British media dared to, finally forcing the media to concede. Like Pat Buchanan in the 90s, Griffin was then dismissed as “racist”; and today his original position is mainstream and widely acknowledged. Nick Griffin in this and in many other ways is the Pat Buchanan of the UK, deserving of our support.

Griffin has lost an eye, been accused of having been raped by a homosexual adult at 16 (the now happily married Griffin denies this), been called a Nazi (Griffin defeated NS-leaning Tyndall to take over the BNP and is often blamed for having condemned British war crimes (Are war crimes ever acceptable?)), suffered death threats, endured eggs thrown at him, been denied a previous *personal invitation* by the Queen, been betrayed by supposed compatriots, been labeled a “fascist” (a word none can define except as “person I don’t like”), and more recently been driven into bankruptcy. Yet still the rooster stands, managing even to raise four children and maintain a marriage.

Some say the BNP is ineffective, but the stances Griffin takes (such as opposition to the homosexual lobby, albeit while rightly tolerating homosexuals) always appear (to this American) necessary even if unpopular. There are times even in politics when selling out isn’t worth the price, and it’s telling that so many in the UK fear debating him! Griffin is probably most feared for his revelations that the EU is corrupt. And he’s most loved outside the UK for having shared his valuable, hard-earned experience.

If a superior man abandons virtue, how can he fulfill the requirements of that name? – Confucius.

U.S. could free Israeli spy in deal to save peace talks

One thing’s for sure: The U.S. most definitely has a “special relationship” with Israel. It’s similar to the kind of relationship you see in the beaten wife syndrome, as this nauseating news nugget makes clear:

An Israeli spy serving a life sentence in the United States and groups of Palestinian prisoners could be freed under an emerging deal to salvage Middle East peace talks, sources close to the negotiations said on Monday.

The sources, who spoke as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry prepared to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders, said under the proposed arrangement that Jonathan Pollard, a former U.S. Navy analyst caught spying for Israel in the 1980s, could be released by mid-April.

In addition, Israel would go ahead with a promised release of a fourth group of Palestinians, among the 104 it pledged to free in a deal that led to the renewal of peace talks last July. Another group of jailed Palestinians would also go free – and the peace talks would be extended beyond an April 29 deadline, the sources said.

What a deal – Israel gets its hero, the Palestinians get their people, and we get the greatest prize of them all: We get to maintain our “special relationship” with Israel. Win-win-win!

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s what Jonathan Pollard – an American citizen, at least on paper, if not in terms of loyalty – did to his country:

Pollard did more damage to the United States than any spy in history. And it was genuine damage, not just a mass of documents that had been routinely classified. Pollard’s Israeli handler, aided by someone in the White House who has up until now evaded arrest, was able to ask for specific classified documents by name and number. The Soviets obtained US war plans, passed to them by the Israelis in exchange for money and free emigration of Russian Jews without any regard for the damage it was doing to the United States. The KGB was able to use the mass of information to reconstruct US intelligence operations directed against it and a number of Americans and US agents paid with their lives. Pollard also revealed to the Israelis and Soviets the technical and human source capabilities that US intelligence did and did not have, which is the most critical information of all as it underlies all information collection efforts. Compounding the problem, the United States has never actually been able to accurately ascertain all of the damage done by Pollard because the Israeli government has refused to cooperate in the investigation and has not returned the documents that were stolen.

But what do you want to bet that the Israel-Firsters will meekly accept this outrage while screaming for Edward Snowden’s head?

Steven Seagal Hearts Putin

Dang! Steven Seagal has really gone rogue.

Mr. Seagal also took occasion in the newspaper interview to slam America for its policy on Ukraine.

“[I’m] an American, and I love my country,” but the current Ukraine policy from the White House is “idiotic,” he said, USA Today reported.

“It’s no secret that I have Republican views, and policies of Obama does not appeal to me,” Mr. Seagal said in the report. “In many ways, it is not even his fault, but the people who are in his inner circle who have views on world politics are diametrically opposed to Russia. In my opinion, a situation where the U.S. and Russia are on opposite sides of the fence is abnormal. And I see my task is to do everything to facilitate the normalization of relations.”

This shows some real insight. There is no reason we should have an antagonistic relationship with Russia. I’m going to rent a Steven Seagal movie the next time I use RedBox.