I've argued against the extreme critique of U.S. policy in Ukraine, one that the Russian foreign ministry regularly trumpets and a small but vocal sliver of the left has embarrassingly embraced. The question remains: Should the United States have been involved in Ukraine at any level?
Why can't one criticize both Washington's foreign policy machinations while also decrying Putin's excesses? Adopting such a position seems clear as day and a "no-brainer," yet the left cannot seem to get beyond the narrow confines of its own ideological fixations.
The idea that the world we create at a personal level can influence if not determine the sort of world we create at the national and international level seems naïve, perhaps, unless one looks at the default alternative, consigned to us by the media: that our role is to be a spectator in the global wrestling arena.
The best way to limit Russian aggression is to strike at their economy, and thus their ability to finance these illegal operations.
The crisis in Ukraine has only highlighted the need for both Europe and Russia to diversify beyond Gazprom's gas exports to Europe.
Russia's brazen annexation of Crimea presents a vexing foreign policy crisis for the Western powers. How can these actions be denounced without pointing a finger back upon their own forays and interventions?
Crimea is gone. Increased sanctions and criticism from the West will not stop Russia's annexation of this largely ethnic-Russian peninsula. As Ukraine now withdraws its troops from Crimea, America and its allies should instead focus their diplomacy on the preservation of a democratic Ukraine.
On the edge of Kabul, Afghanistan, framed by the snowy peaks of the Hindu Kush, lies the Darul Aman Palace, the former home of Afghan King Amanullah Khan.
America's extreme right has long been known for its gratuitous flag waving -- but who ever thought the flag would be Russian? As the crisis in Ukraine unfolds, it is becoming crystal clear that leading social conservatives and their advocacy groups are grappling with a patriot problem.
This is no Putin victory, and no Obama loss. It is a brazen Russian reassertion of interests. But being back in the USSR is of dubious benefit and no reward.
The referendum in Crimea was neither an exercise in democracy, consulting Crimeans on important decisions about their future; nor was it an effective conflict management tool, distributing power between competing interests.
Congrats to Vladimir Putin! His voter tampering has succeeded! (It's easy to vote the "right" way when you've got a gun pointed at your head). Just another day of democracy-in-action for good ol' Vlad.
No amount of blustery rhetoric from the White House would have changed the fact that the United States has no vital interest in keeping Crimea's ethnic-Russian majority population in Ukraine.
Crimean authorities should urgently conduct a thorough investigation into the enforced disappearance and subsequent killing of Reshat Ametov, a Crimean Tatar from the Simferopol region, and bring the perpetrators to justice.
If Russia and President Putin are ready to go to war to claw back some or all of the territories lost when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 no concessions on Crimea will prevent that from happening.
Solovyov's thought may hold the key to resolving this entire conflict. To begin with, his philosophy is by far the most inclusive of the options available to us.