New York magazine published an essay by Jonathan Chait that outlines a “plausible theory of mind-boggling collusion” between Donald Trump and his circle and the Russian government during the 2016 campaign…an essay Chait probably didn’t imagine himself writing back when he urged liberals to “earnestly and patriotically“ support Trump’s seemingly doomed nomination…
“I’ve never seen anything like it in my life,” NYU and Princeton Professor Emeritus Stephen F. Cohen tells Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
America needs fewer enemies. What’s wrong with reducing tensions?
Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest J. Moniz and former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, co-chairmen of the Nuclear Threat Initiative write “There’s much to be done, but it must begin with the two presidents creating a climate for dialogue across our governments, one that will provide a stable foundation for managing our differences and addressing common existential threats.”
Joe Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation debates Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and one of the founding editors of The Intercept. Greenwald calls the Trump-Putin meeting “excellent” while Cirincione calls the summit “a danger to America and to the West.”
I disagree with President Donald Trump about practically everything. With two exceptions.
The increasingly direct road to ruin.
Whether or not to expand NATO is a question that deserves debate. Would it help or hurt U.S. national security?
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says Russia isn’t ever going to admit to interfering in the 2016 US presidential election, while also stating NATO expansion stimulated nationalism in Russia and helped lead to the rise of Vladimir Putin.
Russian analysts understand that no meaningful progress in U.S.-Russian relations is possible until a certain level of closure surrounding Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election is achieved.