Surviving Capitalism (Not) : Arms or Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy Planners Divided over Ukraine Strategy

We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Arms or Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy Planners Divided over Ukraine Strategy

Click here to access article by Steven MacMillan from New Eastern Outlook.

I think that MacMillan overstates his argument. Aside from the two influential people he mentioned, Kissinger and Mearsheimer, I haven't seen any other evidence of division. To be sure, I was surprised to read their dissenting opinions in ruling class oriented publications, but I think they constitute a minority of two.

With no end in sight for a lasting resolution to the crisis in Ukraine following the Western coup in Kiev, U.S. strategists are increasingly becoming polarised over future policy in the region. The belligerent and antagonistic policies of the war-hungry neoconservative movement are pushing the world closer to war with Russia, while other major geopolitical figures in Washington are advocating a de-escalation of the situation and an inclusion of Russia in serious dialogue.