Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) talked about the possibility of NATO expansion and what it could mean for the future of foreign diplomacy. He outlined his support for enlargement of NATO and gave his predictions for the Senate's position on the issue. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland are the United States' choices for membership in NATO. 

Full video of speech via C-Span Presentation before the Atlantic Council in Washington DC

Typical for DC, introduction by James Woolsey, former Director CIA ...

Just about how the foreign policy narrative is set by the CIA agents and American MSM. See Operation Mockingbird.

How Clinton Selected James Woolsey as DCI

As a young army reserve lieutenant Woolsey had campaigned against the Vietnam War. Later, he had drifted to the political right, aligning himself with hard-line anticommunist Democrats such as Henry "Scoop" Jackson.

'Sapere aude'

Many Predicted NATO Expansion Would Lead to War. Those Warnings Were Ignored | CATO - Feb. 28, 2022 |

It has long been clear that NATO expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US's arrogance. Ted Galen Carpenter

The west's new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato's arrogant, tone‐ deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter‐ century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐ century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.

Thinking through the Ukraine crisis -- the causes

"It would be extraordinarily difficult to expand Nato eastward without that action's being viewed by Russia as unfriendly. Even the most modest schemes would bring the alliance to the borders of the old Soviet Union. Some of the more ambitious versions would have the alliance virtually surround the Russian Federation itself." I wrote those words in 1994, in my book Beyond Nato: Staying Out of Europe's Wars, at a time when expansion proposals merely constituted occasional speculation in foreign policy seminars in New York and Washington. I added that expansion "would constitute a needless provocation of Russia".

What was not publicly known at the time was that Bill Clinton's administration had already made the fateful decision the previous year to push for including some former Warsaw Pact countries in Nato. The administration would soon propose inviting Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to become members, and the US Senate approved adding those countries to the North Atlantic Treaty in 1998. It would be the first of several waves of membership expansion.

Even that first stage provoked Russian opposition and anger. In her memoir, Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, concedes that "[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe's dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated."

Moscow's patience with Nato's ever more intrusive behavior was wearing thin. The last reasonably friendly warning from Russia that the alliance needed to back off came in March 2007, when Putin addressed the annual Munich security conference. "Nato has put its frontline forces on our borders," Putin complained. Nato expansion "represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?"

In his memoir, Duty, Robert M Gates, who served as secretary of defense in the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Obama, stated his belief that "the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George HW] Bush left office in 1993".

'Sapere aude'

NATO Expansion: 'A Policy Error of Historic Importance' | by Michael McCgwire - 1998 |

Extraordinary concise presentation how the Clinton administration pushed through the expansion of NATO with former Warsaw Pact countries undermining the future security of all of Europe ... the Kosovo incident with confrontation was emblematic for the White House and U.S. NATO Command ‼️

House of Commons: Memorandum submitted by Michael MccGwire on the Future of NATO

In April 1999 Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will become full members of NATO.

Notwithstanding the sharply polarised US debate that surfaced in 1995-97, future membership for these three states had effectively been decided in the White House by October 1993.[5] After that (as Clinton remarked in Prague in January 1994), the question was no longer whether, but how and when?

Washington makes no pretence that NATO enlargement is other than a US-led policy,[6] and within the Clinton administration, it is recognised that the drive came from the White House. The policy was initially opposed by the Pentagon and by the relevant specialists in State, until enlargement was made a test of loyalty to the President. So, too, did NATO members' support for enlargement become a test of loyalty to the alliance and (since it was a US-led policy) to America.

In sum, NATO was presented with a fait accompli regarding the three new members, with little opportunity for substantive discussion or dissent. In one sense, that is water under the bridge. In another, it is a precursor of what lies ahead. The Clinton administration sees enlargement as the unfolding of a policy formulated in 1993-94;[7] a continuous process, rather than an exploratory step with a pause for reassessment.

It is most unlikely that the British Government will call for such a pause. But as the Defence Committee urged caution over the question of further enlargement, its members may wish to take this opportunity to review the question of European security and the future of NATO from a new base line, one that is more favourable to long term decisions on European security than existed five years ago.

THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT

Some of the improvements in the decision-making environment reflect the passage of time and/or the reduction of uncertainty. Others are the result of inviting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join NATO.

    ▪    --  In terms of American electoral politics, the Polish vote is probably the most important single ethnic group, while the other two have some significance. Their satisfaction increases Clinton's freedom of action regarding enlargement.[8]

    ▪    --  Germany wished to escape the role of frontier zone. It also favoured some kind of Western institutional structure, rather than the spread of German hegemony. Those preferences have been met, allowing a less subjective assessment.

    ▪    --  The Founding Act is in place. We are now in a better position to foresee how Moscow will respond to different NATO initiatives and how this will affect Western policy objectives in the longer term and/or in other areas.

    ▪    --  We have a clearer idea about the political, economic and ethnic situations in the newly independent states, and the relations between those states.

    ▪    --  London and Paris are no longer at odds with Washington over Bosnia, allowing European members of NATO more latitude to challenge the US-led policy on enlargement, should that be desirable.

In addressing those questions, we need to be sensitive to a critical flaw in current policy, a flaw that originates in the American domestic policy process. Under the rubric of "enlargement", NATO is pursuing two competing and contradictory objectives.

The original rationale for NATO enlargement was that the spread of liberal democracy would bring stability and peace in Europe.[9] It was seen as an evolutionary process and would possibly include a democratic Russia, who would in all circumstances participate as partner in a larger security regime embracing greater Europe.[10] The White House had an Inclusive objective--co-operative security in a Europe reaching from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Outside the Clinton administration, the most important political support for NATO enlargement came from the "unilateralists".[11] This hard line viewpoint was strongly represented in the Republican-dominated Congress elected in November 1994.[12] It was against partnership with Russia and stressed rivalry, even enemity.[13] The long-term objective was Exclusionary, its variants ranged from containing Russia, to establishing US preponderance, if not hegemony in Central and Eastern Europe.

'Sapere aude'

The truth about corporations taking over Ukrainian agricultural lands | Ill Manifesto - June 3, 2022 |

The Corporate Takeover of Ukrainian Agriculture | July 28, 2014 |

In Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict, a report released in July 2014, the Oakland Institute exposed how international financial institutions swooped in on the heels of the political upheaval in Ukraine to deregulate and throw open the nation's vast agricultural sector to foreign corporations.

This fact sheet provides details on the transnational agribusinesses that are increasingly investing in Ukraine, including Monsanto, Cargill, and DuPont, and how corporations are taking over all aspects of Ukraine's agricultural system. This includes circumventing land moratoriums, investing in seed and input production facilities, and acquiring commodity production, processing, and transportation facilities.

ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

Ukraine is a country with rich agricultural potential. It is home to over 32 million hectares (ha) of fertile, arable land.5 This is equivalent to one-third of the entire arable land in the European Union.6 Agriculture is also a significant player in Ukraine's economy. It accounts for eight percent of the country's GDP and 17 percent of its employment. In addition, Ukraine is the third-largest exporter of corn and fifth- largest exporter of wheat in the world.

Ukraine's agricultural land is currently under a moratorium that bans its sale until January 1, 2016. Despite this moratorium, at least 1.6 million ha of Ukrainian agricultural land is currently in foreign hands. According to several reports, just 10 large agribusinesses control as much as 2.8 million ha.

What Do the World Bank and IMF Have to Do with the Ukraine Conflict?

'Sapere aude'

.@SenTomCotton: China should not be allowed to purchase farmland in the United States [_link]

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 4, 2022

Weaponizing disinformation pays off for Trumpists and all Americans.

Cotton, Tuberville Introduce Bill to Prohibit the Chinese Communist Party from Purchasing American Land

Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) today introduced the Securing America's Land from Foreign Interference Act to prohibit members of the Chinese Communist Party from purchasing any land in the United States. Text of the bill may be found here.

"Chinese investments in American farmland put our food security at risk and provide opportunities for Chinese espionage against our military bases and critical infrastructure. Instead of allowing these purchases, the U.S. government must bar the Communist Party from purchasing our land," said Cotton.

"We cannot continue giving our top adversary a foot in the door to purchase land in the United States and undermine our national security," said Tuberville. "I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of our bill and join the effort to prohibit Chinese Communist Party involvement in America's agriculture industry."

'Sapere aude'

Reminds me of Tony Blair defending the Iraq War up to the count of a million deaths ...

George F. Kennan was opposed to NATO expansion in the 1990s, as he said that it would cause pretty much everything that is going on rn [_link]

— J. D. Peterson (@JakePeterson32) April 7, 2022

'Sapere aude'

Seeking belligerent allies for Enduring War with its neighbour Russia.

My country, Ukraine, has a proposal for the west - and it could make the whole world safer | The Guardian Opinion - Andriy Yermak |

If the west truly believes in such principles, then it must surely support the democratically elected government of Ukraine [you refer to Yanukovych in 2012, surely - Oui] with comprehensive security guarantees that replace the failed Budapest memorandum.

We are focused on fighting and winning the war, but we have already started the process of securing guarantees from our allies. We have established a high-level working group co-chaired by myself and former NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Members include some of our closest friends, including William Hague, the former UK foreign secretary, Kevin Rudd, the former prime minister of Australia, and Carl Bildt, the former prime minister of Sweden.

Although Ukraine's long-term goal remains NATO membership, we recognise that Russia's current belligerence makes that difficult. In the meantime, however, we need legally binding guarantees by our allies for the provision of weapons, exchange of intelligence, the support of our defence and the protection of our economy.

'Sapere aude'

h/t Cat Slava Ukraini!

CBS censors it's OWN documentary: Here is the ORIGINAL

Soviet, Communist, Russia hysteria is present in foreign policy since the last time 😂 CIA intervened successfully by delivering Stinger missiles to Saudi Mujahideen in 1979-80 on Afghan border in the presence of a young Polish-British reporter Radek Sikorski.

....
Poland's FM Radek Sikorski will be on CNN's GPS Fareed Zakaria for an interview about rigorous sanctions on Putin's Russia in accordance with neocon policy.

Radek Sikorski in BBC Hard Talk part III said: "I was a political refugee once, escaping the gulag."  Wasn't Sikorski part of British mercenaries fighting in Angola, in a job as roving reporter carrying arms? Seems more likely the argument he got British protection and later citizenship. Just doing a friend a favor ...

Later in life Radek would be a successful Polish politician, defense minister, foreign minister and marry Russia hater and American rightwing journalist Anne Applebaum.

She is not biased Hubert explained ...

Scandulous, especially as the Dutch expert Hubert Smeets claims all her arguments are plausible. He does mention she is married to Radoslaw Sikorski, foreign minister of Poland. He further adds: "She is not known for anti-Russian bias." What an extreme dose of neocon propaganda. We have seen the original media bias on Dutch television become more aggressive. So far I expect the independent and professional community of forensic experts not to be influenced by any political pressure.

Soon I discovered Dutch "expert" Hubert Smeets himself was part of the Russiaphobia community in the West ...

Writes on the blog Window on Russia

America's Forever War and operation CHAOS. Supported by good 'ole British disinformation campaign.

'Sapere aude'