LyrArc Article Gist
German Foreign Ministry is to take up question of dependence on China in 2026, and a commission will look into it. Yet this comes 2, 3 or 4 years too late. Germany is scrambling to develop it's foreign policy. German Defense officials in the military say they no longer have 24 contact with their US counterparts. Germany is pulling Britain and France with it to counter any signs of weakness in Europe, so that the three countries can act as a counter weight to the US, and to Russia allied with China. Merz is now called the foreign policy chancellor. So much has changed from the Merkel days which are years that were wasted in infrastructure, digital, foreign policy, and migration policies that make sense for people's ease of living. Germans may have underestimated Merz in the way they overestimated Merkel, lacking the clear view of what the future requires from Germany in a world filled with China, India, Brazil and the other nations of Europe, and the US, a world which requires confidence and investment. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Magyar says-  "You performed a miracle today, Hungary made history today." Magyar's party needed 133 seats in the 199 seat Hungarian parliament to reverse some of Orban's more controversial policies on the judiciary and on government. Magyar's party Tisza won 138 seats and 57% of the vote compared to about 38% for Viktor Orban's Fidesz that has ruled Hungary from 1998-2002 and 2010 to 2026. Magyar likens the win to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a spontaneous uprising against Soviet rule, and an earlier revolution in 1848. Voter tunout was the highest it has ever been at 78%. The city on the Danube river Budapest was lit up, parliament was lit up as Hungary celebrated a win for reintegration into Europe. For 400 years since 1600 the Hapsburg dynasty helped push back the Ottoman Turks invasion of Hungary and Vienna, and was one of the major Empires of Europe, with Britain, France, Russia, Prussia competing for influence. The Hapsburg  base was in both Vienna and Budapest and reflects the history of Central Europe from the Renaissance to the Scientific and Industrial Revolution. Magyar's first visit is to Poland. He will join European leaders from France, Britain and Germany, Italy, as they formulate policy on Ukraine and the future of the European Union. Under Orban Hungary was the lone dissent or combined this with Poland's Law and Justice Party government in the European Union. In 1923 the Law and Justice Party was defeated, in 2026 Fidesz is defeated, and the European Union is now able to speak with one voice in its opposition to Russia. As the US moves away from NATO the new European Union is in a better position to take on responsibilities for its defense. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Making some territorial concessions appears to be the only way for peace talks to succeed. For a long time there was insistence on territorial sovereignty of Ukraine by EU and NATO leaders. This appears to have prolonged the war- with needless loss of life on both sides, and costly damage to Ukraine infrastructure, a population that had to face additional winters and hardship in war ravaged areas. NATO's Stoltenberg from Norway, leaders of northern Nordic and Baltic countries, the UK, could take that position without having to face the hardship of the war. NATO had to be re-formed under a new name and new structure  following the collapse of the Soviet Union, with wariness about the possibility of centuries old since 1700 UK and Nordic historical adversarial relationship with Russia casting a shadow over that organization, and embroiling the US in conflicts not of its own choice or of wise leadership. This is the root cause of the Ukraine war. It would have been best to completely restructure NATO and give it a new name without Northern European nations leading it. Principles matter once soviet communism was no longer there NATO formed for its expansionism in 1950's had served it's purpose. Rasmussen from Denmark and Stoltenberg from Norway led the organization for the last decade and half from 2009-2014 and 2014 to 2025, with backing from Obama/Merkel for most of the period of the war in Ukraine. Also most of the period NATO expanded to Russian borders happened under Northern European leaders from Spain, Britain and Nordics (Solana, Robertson, Scheffer, Rasmussen and Stoltenberg) and the organization NATO getting the northern European slant based on historical adversarial relationship of Britain and Russia since 1700- for no other reason than the British wanting to protect its large Empire and commerce in India which in the 18th and 19th century included most of Asia. Under Robertson the UK Defense Secretary much of this transformation into turning NATO into something anti-Russian happened which was primarily because of British and Nordic perceptions of Russia as an adversary. Robertson added the following countries at the Prague Summit in 2002 to NATO- the Baltics, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Russia faced internal upheaval in those years and Yeltsin in resigned in 1999, Putin was elected in 2000. It is clear that Russia had suffered severe economic hardship in that period and Putin's first goal in 2002 was to stabilize the economy.  It could be said that this turning NATO over to UK and Nordics was a huge mistake considering that Russia was still the largest nuclear power after the US, and British policy was now determining US policy. And Britain's Robertson/NATO should not have involved itself in the Afghanistan war using Article 5, as the US could have handled this alone and limited that engagement. It got US involved in another conflict, conflict with Russia that was to come in Ukraine on the side of the Baltics and Ukraine, without US clearly understanding what the roots of that war was about and implied confrontation with Russia 20 years after the Prague Summit in 2002 under George Bush junior. The incompetence of Bush and Obama/Merkel laid the seeds of the Ukraine war in 2022 following Robertson, Rasmussen, Stoltenberg, small Nordic nations and Britain creating a conflict that did not need to happen, with loss of hundreds of thousands of lives of Russian speaking fraternal peoples of both Russia and Ukraine. The Republican sentiment under DJT of the tragedy of such huge losses of young people, and desire to end this loss of life, can nowhere be seen in bellicose talk in northern European nations, that take the US for granted to fight their wars.  The wisdom of Washington, Lincoln and TR/FDR clearly caution in getting involved in European centuries old animosities. For the US it meant in practical terms that it could no longer carry out the Monroe Doctrine essential for peace and good governance in the western hemisphere as only a Russia desperate to make its views known about NATO would interfere in the western hemisphere against US assertion of the Monroe Doctrine with the US Navy. Instead drug trafficking gangs took over Latin American countries and created a flow of fentanyl and millions of people through migrant traffickers across the US southern border. As America has expressed its concern for loss of Russian and Ukrainian men in the war for the first time under DJT Russia has distanced itself from Venezuela, Mexico and Latin America. The loss of hundreds of thousands of young Americans to fentanyl is a shared tragedy with the loss of hundreds of thousands of young Russians and Ukrainians in the last decade. How reliable are Northern European countries when it comes to protecting the eastern seaboard of the US with the acquisition of Greenland? It is a policy pursued by presidents since the Alaska Acquisition from Russia. By Seward, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and DJT. Denmark the land where NATO secretary general Rasmussen was from followed by Stoltenberg from Norway  (for 15 of the years of the war in Ukraine 2010-2025) the US efforts to protect its eastern seaboard are rebuffed by both Denmark and Norway, and the US presented in a negative light as an imperialist power in the face of Danish East India Company's  colonial attitude since 1700 clearly imitating the colonial British East India company.  It shows Northern European nations looking out for themselves not for the US, and embroiling the US in their wars at the cost of the entire western hemisphere being destabilized. The population of UK, Denmark and Norway, Baltics is far less than the Mumbai, Shanghai, Sao Paulo , Berlin and Tokyo regions. Should the views of a small population in northern Europe of 2% of the total determine the future of US, Europe, China, India, Brazil, and other parts of the world with 5 billion people the 98%, when issues of war and nuclear conflict, nuclear buildup, the western hemisphere destabilized with drug trafficking gangs running rampant in countries, divide the world in opposing blocs, when the wellbeing of most of the world's people in Asia and Latin America, Africa is at stake by establishing a essential degree of cooperation by all sides. The US under DJT has chosen a wise policy of cooperation over conflict -with China, with Russia, with all the major powers, and with smaller powers. Reading the wisdom contained in the writings of Washington, Lincoln, TR/FDR confirms it is clearly the wise choice. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US under president DJT puts out a new National Security Strategy in a document which states it clearly. The days of the Middle East given importance are thankfully over it says. The focus is on the First Islands, from Taiwan, Philippines to Japan for strengthening defense in relation to China. The Monroe Doctrine is now part of US foreign policy with a DJT addition- "that the American people- not foreign nations or globalist institutions- will always control our own destiny in our hemisphere."  It also means the US has a new policy towards Russia and for NATO.  The DJT administration priority, it states, is “ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.” The new strategy is that Europe needs to “take primary responsibility for its own defense.” The Monroe Doctrine and the disassociation with NATO expansion are linked. How so? Russia's foreign policy is for winning recognition as a Northern European Power with its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, being able to control its destiny in its sphere of influence. The way the Monroe Doctrine was implemented in 1823 was by a tacit recognition gained from Britain that it would support the US in its idea of no European colonial powers (France, Spain other ) being allowed to interfere in Latin America, in the western hemisphere. In 2025 the way the Monroe Doctrine is implemented with the DJT Corollary is that the US is tacitly gaining support from Russia/China for implementing the Monroe Doctrine so that no foreign powers will interfere in US sphere influence in the western hemisphere.  Where does this leave Europe and Ukraine? European Union and NATO expansion has now gone too far and NATO which was primarily for Cold War struggle between Communism and US/UK style democracies is over, but NATO has not been disbanded, or a new alliance setup with new goals. Instead as it lingers on it has created new problems such as NATO expansion to the borders of Russia, creating security risks for Russia. This has led to the war in Ukraine and the Republican administration under DJT seeks to defuse tensions and the Ukraine war by excluding NATO expansion, removing the US from European security by delegating that back to Europe (Germany and France, Italy, UK) and by acting as a moderating influence between Russia and Germany, France, that see Russia as a threat after it's attack on Ukraine. US also upholds the policy and principle of no nation invading another country, as Russia did with Ukraine, and in anticipation of the China threat to Taiwan. This part gets nuanced but the overall policy is coherent and Russia accepts this, China is gradually coming to the idea that it has to accept this situation with Taiwan to preserve its economic advances and its exports to the US and EU.  In practice once the interference of China or Russia is removed and European powers in addition, the US has freedom of action in the Western hemisphere and Latin America to prevent crises such as with drug trafficking gangs in Mexico and Venezuela, and unstable regimes sending people north to the US across the Mexican border as from Central America and Venezuela.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Talks at the White House between Macron of France and DJT on Feb 24, 2025. DJT says Russian president Putin will accept European and American troops in Ukraine to monitor a peace settlement as a peace keeping force. French troops were offered for such aforce by Macron. DJT says he asked Putin directly this question and the answer was yes for a peacekeeping force to end the war. Analysis by The Times shows Britain and the EU are coming to terms with DJT policy to end the war and Europe shouldering its defense  responsibilities and costs because America has challenges in the Asia Pacific with the rise of China. 

To get an idea of China's resources and capacity it now has over 50% of ship building capacity in the world. The US is only now ramping up its efforts to build ships and increase the effectiveness and size of the US Navy, and a major defense effort is underway.

LyrArc Article Gist
Fomer Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says America needs to take up a vigorous foreign policy in his book "Worthy Fights." Both Panetta and Hillary Clinton, and Gen. Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Petraeus of the CIA, supported U.S. taking a strong stand in Syria by supporting Syrian opposition forces in the summer of 2011 and were overruled by president Obama and his election advisers because of the approaching 2012 election. Here Mark Landler provides more insights into Hillary Clinton's deeply held belief shared with Panetta that the U.S. had to take strong action where necessary to deter foes, to get into the ring to use Panetta's expression. The U.S. support for action in Libya to support Britain and France comes from the efforts of Clinton, and any lack of followup one of president Obama's errors in foreign policy. In April 2016 president Obama said that he considered his failure to followup in Libya to help the new Libyan government his biggest mistake in his presidency. Here Mark Landler looks at Hillary Clinton's entire career as showing a conviction and belief on the need for action where necessary in the U.S. global engagement. Compared to the bluster of the candidates Trump, Cruz and Sanders, with little experience to back this up in their careers in real estate, law or the Senate , Landler says Clinton is the last remaining hawk. Here he describes Hillary Clinton's contact and empathy for the troops from her trip to the American base in Tuzla, Bosnia, in March 1996. In fact many have forgotten that Yugoslavia is what it is today after the Milosevic years and the ethnic wars with Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, members of the EU and Serbia negotiating to enter EU, because of the bombing campaign taken by Bill Clinton through NATO in 1999 to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and peacemaking following the Bosnian War using diplomat Holbrooke to negotiate the 1995 Dayton Accords. Here Landler describes the meetings with Gen. Keane who pushed for the troop surge that worked in Iraq under president George W. Bush. Clinton supported Keane's proposal made in April 2015, for a no-fly-zone in Syria that would help opposition forces till a settlement could be negotiated. Keane pointed out to Clinton that there was a flaw in Obama's policies- that negotiation would work only if the no-fly-zone was used to support opposition forces. By the end of 2015 Hillary Clinton publicly adopted this position. During a period when Americans are weary of foreign entanglements but understand the need to provide leadership where needed, Hillary Clinton, provides a balance between the pendulum swinging too sharply in one direction in the Bush years and in another direction in the Obama years, says Landler. A view also articulated by Leon Panetta, who was chief of staff for President Clinton during the Bosnian conflict and the Dayton Accords, where the U.S. showed strength of purpose in war and also in negotiating the peace without major entanglements....

LyrArc Article Gist
Prime minister Modi's visit to the US comes at a time when US president Biden is eager to show the US is fully engaged in the Indo-Pacific region with its allies in the Quad 4 countries- Australia, Japan and India. The recently announced Aukus defense agreement brought together 2 members of the Quad 4 the US and Australia, plus the UK. Aukus is designed to strengthen US presence as a naval power in the Indo-Pacific region in the Indian and Pacific oceans around India, Southeast Asia, China, and across the Pacific. After a futile engagement in Afghanistan the US is reorganizing its presence where it is strongest- in the oceans. In a way that Britain once did in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the US is dominant in the high seas. US naval power far exceeds that of all navies in the world combined. This is meant to reassure India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia and Japan, which together have close to twice the population of China, that the US has not diminished its presence in any way from that it had in the 1950's following the Second World War. With this new framework India enters discussions that will focus on health to deal with the pandemic and its after effects, with security and rule of law in the Indo-Pacific region, with trade, technology, new supply chain manufacturing structure in which India plays a key role. With this new focus and clearing past engagements made by other US  presidents, including some mistaken policies, the US emerges as a new force in the Indian ocean, China seas and Pacific ocean region.  On September 23 Modi meets Tim Cook for what could be new supply chain arrangements that Apple could be preparing as it and other US corporations build new supply chain structures to rebuild US manufacturing technologies capabilities that were lost to China over the period 2000-2020. During that period manufacturing technology knowhow was shifted out of the US in a mistaken policy that assumed design and invention were sufficient for the US to keep. The first step in this direction was a change of CEO's at Intel Corp with US president Biden pushing for new US technology reclaiming policy. Following that the new CEO at Intel Corp, Patrick Gelsinger, completely reassessed Intel's mistaken policies of ceding its entire semiconductor manufacturing technologies capabilities to Taiwan and China. Intel made a U turn and is now investing all or most of $50 billion in the US instead of in China or Taiwan.  On September 24 Modi meets Mr Biden to discuss trade, investment, defense, and security. On the same day the leaders of Japan, Australia, Mr. Suga and Mr. Morrison join Modi and Biden for the Quad 4 talks. Indian infrastructure capabilities and Indian economic growth would be key goals to strengthen India along its land borders along Tibet occupied region and Himalayas as part of the overall effort to build a new US and allied presence in Asia.  On September 21 Modi attends a Covid Summit that will look at the way forward in the aftermath of the pandemic and ways to vaccinate the remaining unvaccinated population in the world, as well as vaccination passports.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in DW.com discusses the quick rise of Annalena Baerbock, 40 years, to the co-leader role with better known Robert Habeck, 51 years, at a party conference in 2018. In the winter of 2019 she was supported by a huge 97% of delegates at the party conference, with Habeck getting 90%. She has an advantage in foreign policy issues with her education in England at the London School of Economics, where she studied for her Masters degree in International Law. She speaks fluent English, rare in German politics. Baerbock spent 1 year in the US when she was only 16 years old. Very useful now with changes in Europe, the US and India. Boris Johnson in Britain, Biden in the US, and Modi in India, all speaking English.  She has spoken up against xenophobia, and being from Potsdam in the east is able to understand issues facing East Germany. A big change Baerbock says happened in 2019. Then she and Habeck decided to open up the Greens to become a big tent party that welcomes people from all sides. This was a smart choice at the time as Germans moved away from the two main parties- the SPD and the CDU. Dismay from the Schroder years when working class issues were ignored, and dissatisfaction with the Merkel years when investments in infrastructure, social care, health, education were neglected.  AfD support has stalled with the end of the migrant crisis and immigration no longer an issue. Baerbock says today of that 2019 party conference- "What we knew then was that we wanted to open our party up, that we wanted to make policies for a broad society: inviting and with clear objectives. Here today I want to make an offer, for the whole of society, as an invitation to lead our diverse, strong, rich country into a good future." Key changes that could happen in Germany in 2022- Phase out of coal powered energy by earlier date than 2038. No support for increased defense spending. Yet this is not likely to be an issue with the new American Biden administration. Infrastructure and vital investments in health and education would become a top priority similar to the US, UK and India. Careful policy coordination by Germany with the US, UK, France, India and Japan, and other EU nations, as the world shifts into a period in which lessons learned from the pandemic and the last three decades lead to renewal of supply channels and renewal of societies.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ looks at the 75 years of the US Saudi Arabia relationship that started when US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt met Saudi king Ibn Saud at Bitter Creek, Egypt, on a US Navy destroyer ship in 1945. It has gone through many phases over this period and mainly involved the Saudi kingdom maintaining its supply of oil to the US and Western Europe. This relationship went through an oil embargo during tense periods of Israeli Palestine conflict as in 1983 with an oil embargo that pushed up oil prices. What is different this time is the situation in Yemen where Iranian supported Houthi rebels near the border with Saudi Arabia are engaged in a conflict with the Saudis. Democratic administrations under first Obama and Biden today support reaching a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons development and limit US military support for the war in Yemen. The Saudis for their part are not keen on a regional war and turned down efforts by president Trump to respond to attacks from Yemen. Mr. Biden's envoy has arranged for a deal to reduce tensions between the Houthis in Yemen and Saudis. The diplomatic impasse in relations stems from the Kashoggi incident and president Biden's concern for the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Other factors making relations difficult are the economic interests of the two countries diverging. The relationship Roosevelt started in 1945 has changed in its fundamental character. Oil supplies for imports into the US is no longer a factor for the US which was the original interest of president Roosevelt in Saudi Arabia. This changed by 2015 as the US fracking industry enabled US to become self sufficient in oil and able to supply LNG to western Europe. Instead of the US Saudi oil now goes to China. Russian oil also goes to China as its industry expanded with American investment. This has led to a new Saudi relationship with China which has changed the dynamic of the American Saudi relationship. Some of the new aspects of this can also be seen in Saudi relationship with South Asia. Saudi ties have increased with India and India in 2021 was the first country to provide vaccine supplies to Saudi Arabia. Saudis, Qatar, United Arab Emirates are building relationships with India as a close neighbor in the region. Relationships are in some ways improving in the Asian region compared to the period when oil was simply exchanged as a commodity for defense supplies from the US without regard to cultural, educational and other changes in Saudi society. In a sense US and Western Europe paid little attention to the huge democracy of over 1 billion people right in the middle of Asia and followed policies that led to major investments in China and little or no investment in India, and without realizing it followed a policy that the British had pursued in the British Empire of treating different communities and religions as separate as opposed to one community of people in South Asia that were engaged in modernizing, building infrastructure and changing centuries old ways of living. The British Empire was sustained by this kind of thinking, and as long as Indians were complacent and lacked the will to make their aspirations for a better life and infrastructure for modernization this kind of thinking prevailed. The economic crises in Asia have reinforced the idea that there is one community entirely focused on development and modernization in South Asia. The people in South Asia care most about the cost of living and the infrastructure and services for the quality of life they live and their children can aspire for- same in European Union that chose the Greens and chancellor Scholz, and same in the US that chose president Biden to invest infrastructure and people, the same in China and the same in India and the rest of Asia. This is the situation that the US and Britain, and the European Union are now beginning to learn and adapt to that is a constructive aspect of these changes to rebuild the connections and supply chains that were sorely neglected before now. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This exceptional report by Chulov in the Guardian shows the changes in the war in Iraq and Syria in 2015-2016 since the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey in late 2015. It says that the Syrian government's future was uncertain in late 2015 with Turkish support for rebel forces in the north. During this period Russia curtailed trade and tourism relations with Turkey, and improved relations with the Kurds. Russia intervened in northern Syria directly to prevent a collapse of Syrian government forces in the north. Kurdish forces were already controlling large parts of the Syrian territory adjoining Turkey, and Turkey was concerned about the support to Kurds within Turkey from Kurds in Syria and a historical movement for  Kurdish independence. In April 2016 Russia made a move to win Turkish support by saying it would support the territorial integrity of Syria, so that no support would be given to the Kurds. As the U.S. consistently supported the Kurds in the fight against ISIS, Turkey under prime minister Erdogan changed its policy of support for rebel forces in Syria to focus on what it perceived as the threat fom Kudish control of the region at its Syrian borders. Rebel forces were told to focus not on the Syrian government forces but on ISIS, leading to withdrawal of support in Aleppo. What remains now of the war in Syria and Iraq is Iranian influence in Iraq, the Russian influence from support of the Syrian government in Damascus, and for the first time U.S. ground forces in the north with 900 troops supported by artillery on the side of the Kurds. The next stage in the war to take ISIS controlled Raqqa is being negotiated between Russia, Turkey and the U.S., according to this report.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama called Libya and the policy of not following up on helping establish a stable democratic government in Libya his biggest mistake. Kristof of the NYT says people looking back would say Syria and not establishing safe zones is Obama's biggest mistake. He describes the 470,000 deaths in Syria as a huge tragedy that could have been avoided to a large extent by setting up safe zones. In addition the UN estimates that millions of refugees on a scale similar to the partition of India in 1947 were created.There is bipartisan opinion on this. Kristof cites General Cartwright's opinion in a conversation he had with Cartwright that this should have been done. Others who agree are Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, who spoke at the Democratic Convention about how America helped change her life as a young refugee after Russia's invasion of Czechoslovakia following Prague Spring. Albright says force should be used carefully so as not to aggravate the situation but action taken where needed, something that was done successfully under Bill Clinton in the Bosnian conflict following Serbia's ethnic cleansing policy under Milosevic. Not only that, with the diplomacy of ambassador Holbrooke Clinton was able to negotiate the peace accords that hold till today- a huge achievement.  Kori Schake, director of defense strategy in the George W. Bush White House also agrees. This would have improved U.S. relations with Turkey as this was a key Turkish request. And it would have reduced the dimensions of the refugee crisis in Europe, which has hurt the European Union. The Brexit "No" vote many in Britain have attributed to ads showing refugees in endless numbers streaming across Europe's borders. Similar ads were used in Austria's elections. Kristof points out that Secretary of State Kerry's job of negotiating a peace is difficult in these conditions. Another issue raised by Kristof is the lack of Obama's leadership in helping the refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, as he points out only 41% of this is funded. David Miliband former British Foreign Secretary, who heads the International Rescue Committee , says 200,000 Syrian kids are growing up in Lebanon without an education. George Washington counseled against getting involved in the wars on the European continent for a young nation, this advice was not followed in the Reagan and other administrations without showing the carefulness needed before action is taken. As Hillary Clinton has once pointed out the situation has resembled a pendulum swinging in the other direction under president Obama, and former Defense Secretary, Panetta, has expressed similar views. Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta, Gates, Gen. Jones, served in the first term of the Obama administration, many of these mistakes were made in the second term by president Obama and his White House advisors Dennis McDonough, Valerie Jarrett who clearly lacked the deep foreign policy experience of Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta (who served under Bill Clinton), and Gates who served under many presidents). ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Defense Secretary in the second term of the Obama administration, Chuck Hagel, says U.S. president Obama hurt his credibility when he failed to act on his own comments of a "red line" being crossed following the chemical attacks in Syria by the Assad government. Hagel was critical in an article in Foreign Policy magazine of the way the national security advisor, Susan E. Rice, ran discussions on foreign policy issues, with too many meetings and discussion followed up with deferring difficult decisions.

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial in September 2014 says many of president Obama's statements and decisions on Obama healthcare legislation and implementation, Syria, NSA and privacy, the Middle East, Russia, showed poor judgement. It refers to a piece by Peter Baker in NYT where it is said that Obama mocked how people see him as too professorial, diffident, in a sarcastic statement. The problem says WSJ is that president Obama has poor judgement. Being academically credentialed and quick grasp of subject matter is not the same as having the ability to discern things, instinct and grasp of the essence of the matter. George Bush senior had a long resume and was academically credentialed. By comparison Truman had a short resume and was not academically credentialed or quick with data and analysis. He had something more essential and important- a discerning mind and grasp of the larger picture, as well as listening abilities for exceptional advisors such as General Marshall and Acheson he gathered around him....

LyrArc Article Gist
David Brooks of the NYT comments on the Hillary Clinton interview by Goldberg in the Atlantic magazine, where she criticized U.S. president Obama for a weak foreign policy and failure to act in Syria. Brooks says Obama's failure to act in the robust manner Clinton is advocating only leads Obama into situations where he is forced to act later as the situation deteriorates with more serious consequences for the U.S. By not acting in a timely manner the U.S. may be forced into greater involvement later, which makes Obama's "don't do stupid stuff" less of a sound idea than it appears. As Clinton points out not leading to better decisions in the same manner as the Bush-Cheney jingoistic policy making.

LyrArc Article Gist
John Bolton looks at the continual dithering behaviour of the U.S. president in the Middle East- Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq in sequence- and provides some insights into the president's behaviour. He says it comes from Obama's distrust of the U.S. role in the world as a positive factor, and a deterministic view of the "arc of history" bending towards outcomes he finds ideologically acceptable. This coincides with a different public perception of America's role in the world, not so much of mistrust and skepticism, as of indifference and focus back on domestic issues following the event of the first war in Iraq and of the 2008-2009 financial crisis. The two are different in nature as the public including women may not share the ideological frame of mind of the president that the U.S. is not overall a serious positive factor in the world through the presidencies of TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Ike, to Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton, from the Russo-Japanese war, through the First and Second World War, the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War, to the Balkan conflict. Bolton writes at a time when the two perceptions are about to diverge as the U.S. returns to its normal role of positive and constructive engagement with the world....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist points out (in this cover issue on India-Pakistan relations) several fundamental facts. The first is that the current state of relations betweeen India and Pakistan hurts Pakistan the most. It makes a much smaller country and smaller economy bear the burden of defense against a large neighbor- defense takes up much needed allocation of funds for infrastructure and development, education and healthcare. It also weakens democratic institutions and their development by an overdependence on the military for governance. Poor India-Pakistan relations have significant adverse effects on the U.S. In fighting the Taliban U.S. forces are fighting a force that Pakistan's military helped create and support from its early beginnings as a way to counter Indian influence. With an Indian-Pakistani peace settlement of issues in Kashmir and other outstanding issues the U.S. would be in a significantly better position to disengage from the region, especially when the entire Middle East is moving in a new direction in 2011. Consider the difficulties in establishing peace in Northern Ireland, and between Turkey and Greece, and the difficulties of establishing peace between India and Pakistan cannot be considered even more difficult. Pakistan and India muddle along- neither side is doing much to take the initiative. For the U.S. disengagement from South Asia can be best achieved by pushing for a settlement between the two countries. Pakistan and India have much to gain from a settlement. Considering the progress made in Ireland, such places as Yugoslavia, and in Turkish-Greek relations, there is a lot more that can be done and should be done to bring India and Pakistan together. In Ireland diplomatic efforts were made by U.S. envoy George Mitchell, and in Yugoslavia U.S. envoy Holbrooke made diplomatic efforts towards the Dayton accords. Greek-Turkish relations have advanced to the point where Erdogan and Papandreou, the Greek and Turkish prime ministers, discuss solutions to the Greek debt crisis. This includes options to reduce Greece's defense expenditures in the light of Turkey's new foreign policies. The lack of such efforts to break the deadlock between India and Pakistan by the U.S,. the U.K. and other countries involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, the emphasis on a military solution supported first by Gen. McChrystal, and then by by Gen. Petraeus, all show a lack of understanding of the real issues that need to be tackled- issues relating to a peace settlement between India and Pakistan....

LyrArc Article Gist
This Journal editorial points to the 3 page letter from Gen. Dempsey that make a U.S. response in Syria seem difficult and laborious, cost $1 billion a month, and endless. Gen. Keane points to the Syrian air force operating from just 6 main air strips and with about 50 aircraft out of 100 operational, using this to terrorize the opposition and the countryside indiscriminately including civilian population. Taking these out with cruise missile and other strikes is all that is needed, not even a no-fly zone says Keane. Short of a proper response the U.S. and the Obama administration could only end up leaving the Assad regime in place for longer, says the Journal. Aid to rebel groups that can then do the work of completing the transition is the right strategy, says the Journal.

LyrArc Article Gist
Defense Secretary Gates does not see Russia as the threat it was in the Cold War, first because Russia's conventional forces are a "shadow" of what they were during the Cold War, and Russia has adverse demographic trends that will diminish Russia's ability in conventional forces. He sees the Georgian war in the context of Russia's seeking to exorcize, as he puts it, past humiliations. And Gates sees opportunities in the relationship with Russia. Such things as Russia's willingness to work with the US on Afghanistan. Evidence of this is Russia supporting the renwal of the UN resolution on Afghanistan. Another indication is that Russia he says is very worried about the drugs coming out of Afghanistan, and has been supportive to provide alternative routes for Europeans to get equipment and supplies into Afghanistan. These views come across in an interview on December 17, with Charlie Rose, a five time elected Congressman, for the PBS Charlie Rose show. They are also reflected in an article in Foreign Affairs journal's current issue. Gates was a CIA analyst and has some insightful observations. Gates told Charlie Rose that he does not see the Islamic radicals and violent Islamic extremists as a threat in the same way as the threat in the Cold War years. This threat is not as big as the threat to freedom during the Cold War. He says the failure in strategic communications was huge as agencies of the US government engaged in activities in other countries, like the Agency for International Development and the US Information Agency, were neglected starting in the in the 1990's. Communications in other countries of what the US represented and stands for was left to the Pentagon, a role the Pentagon was ill-suited for. He sees the Islamic terrorism as more of an ideological conflict. Speaking at a town hall meeting at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, in December, Gates pointed to these communications failures as a real challenge for the new administration. But he now sees a huge opportunity in this past failure, and ways of addressing it creatively, in addition to commiting resources and people to this effort. Walter Pincus wrote this article, and its part of the fineprint analysis effort at the Washington Post in which speeches, reports, and other documents are examined by people like Pincus, to catch the really important things, uncovering the fine print that really makes the headlines. Another aspect of this fineprint effort is that there are a huge number of reports, and speeches and documents that had a tone reminiscent of the Cold War during the Georgia war and yet they do not correctly reflect the real situation about Russia, as Gates sees it from his analysis of what is actually happening. Gates has used Foreign Affairs, the Dec 17 Charlie Rose Show on PBS in which he was interviewed, and the speech at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, to communicate his views and analysis. They are important to underline and emphasize precisely because they show that all that cold war hysteria reporting and speeches may be misleading and lead to improper conclusions and mistakes in policy, wasted effort, wasted resources, and lost lives. And just as the US strategic communications was starved of resources and effort, so also this necessary work to retrieve and give emphasis to the important things is neglected. One additional link to this is the speech, discussion, and QA session in Washington DC at the time of the G20 summit in which President Medvedev and the new administration's elder statesman and diplomat Marilyn Albright, former secretary of state, expressed their hopes and plans for a new era in Russian-American relations. ...