Ambassador Jack Matlock: The Mistakes We Made with Russia and How to Stop Making Them

[bananas]

U.S. diplomat Jack F. Matlock was U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union during the crucial years 1987-1991 that saw the end of the Cold War. Matlock witnessed the tumultuous final years of the Soviet Union first hand as Reagan’s Ambassador in Moscow.

Presented by the Committee for the Republic, February 11, 2015 at The National Press Club, Washington, DC

The Committee for the Republic is a citizen-based, non-partisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2003. The Committee sponsors speakers monthly on challenges to the American Republic, including the military-industrial complex, too-big-to-fail banks, campaign finance, and U.S. competitiveness. For questions or requests email [email protected]

Articles about this at http://www.thenation.com/article/198289/legendary-ambassador-delivers-some-straight-talk-dc
and https://nuclearrisk.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/reagans-ambassador-to-moscow-speaks-on-ukraine/

[bananas]

1. The Nation: Legendary Ambassador Delivers Some Straight Talk in DC

http://www.thenation.com/article/198289/legendary-ambassador-delivers-some-straight-talk-dc

Legendary Ambassador Delivers Some Straight Talk in DC
Jack Matlock makes the case for the United States reaching a practical compromise with Russia.
James Carden February 17, 2015

Just as the Beltway’s legions of neo–Cold Warriors were working themselves up into paroxysms of self-righteous indignation over the Obama administration’s refusal to (so far, anyway) arm America’s purported “allies” in Kiev, one of the Cold War’s wise men reappeared in Washington last week.

At a gathering sponsored by the Committee for the Republic, which was formed by an elite group of former Washington officials in response to George W. Bush’s foreign policy adventurism, Jack Matlock spoke for nearly an hour at the National Press Club urging the assembled not to fall prey to the Manichaeistic view of the current crisis in relations between the United States and Russia.

Matlock, 85, knows of what he speaks. He began his thirty-five-year career in the Foreign Service translating dispatches between Washington and Moscow at the height of the Cuban missile crisis. He was present at nearly every US-Soviet summit between 1972–91 and served as US ambassador to Russia under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush from 1987–91.

<snip>

For all his manifold faults, Reagan knew that as long as there was “distrust between us” it would be impossible to find common ground on issues as diverse as arms control, nuclear proliferation, the environment and emigration. Reagan, unlike his predecessors, knew that “we were too upfront on human rights” and that a private not public approach would yield more results. Reagan “never denigrated any Soviet leader by name…and dealt with them with respect.” Today we have a President and Congress who routinely insult the leader of Russia. Yet Matlock warns: “you don’t set up a public duel if you want to solve a crisis.”

<snip>

[bananas]

2. Martin Hellman: Reagan's Ambassador to Moscow Speaks on Ukraine

https://nuclearrisk.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/reagans-ambassador-to-moscow-speaks-on-ukraine/

Reagan’s Ambassador to Moscow Speaks on Ukraine
Posted on February 18, 2015

Over the last year, this blog has presented significant evidence that the prevailing Western view of the Ukrainian crisis has major blind spots which are prolonging the human suffering in that nation, and which also increase the risk of a nuclear disaster. Ronald Reagan’s Ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, has been a valuable resource in my efforts, so I was pleased to see an article in The Nation which reported on a major address he gave last Wednesday. Here are some key excerpts (emphasis added):

Something is amiss, according to the ambassador, when heretofore serious voices in Washington believe that arming Kiev is a relatively consequence-free policy choice because they insist on viewing Russia as “a regional power.” To Matlock’s way of thinking, this is an error of the first order. “No one with ICBM’s is a regional power, not by any means.”

Matlock stressed that his position—that the United States needs to find a modus vivendi with Russia in spite of the crisis in Ukraine—is not driven by any animus towards the Ukrainians, far from it. “I respect and know Ukraine; I know it, its people and its literature,” but we in the West and in the United States in particular need to understand that for Russia, Ukraine is of “existential” importance.

According to the ambassador, who was present at some of the most pivotal discussions between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev during the Cold War’s denouement, the taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion. … Bush’s promise [to Gorbachev] not to expand the alliance eastward in exchange for the peaceful and orderly withdrawal of Soviet occupying troops in Eastern Europe was, according to Matlock, repeated by nearly all of the alliance members at the time.

I had not seen coverage of Ambassador Matlock’s speech in my daily reading of both the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, and a web search found no coverage from them on line as well. The same was true for the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. This bias on the part of our media results in a dangerous blind spot in our perspective on the Ukrainian crisis.

<snip>

[newthinking]

3. Thank you Bananas. There are more sane voices speaking up every day.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. With a decade being Politically run by

the Military Industrial Complex which includes the Banksters,we are seeing the real end game of the Mufti-Nationals. Control of all Mineral Wealth,control of all Banking,and a Subservient Society to serve as the Vassals and Slaves of a Master Class. The truth and those who don't get it,well,the bite in the ass is coming. Some of old dogs still have tons of fight left to slow down the inevitable.

[Dumpster Macaine]

5. It Must Be Said

Two Points the Matlock discussion missed:

Regarding Russian paranoia: Prior to NATO expansion and the current Ukraine crisis, the British first attacked Russia at Archangel shortly after the Bolsheviks came to power (1917), shortly after that joined in the Russian Civil War to reimpose remnants of the ousted Tzarist regime, killing millions, had powerful elements in politics-finance-and industry in the U.S., the U.K. and France that supported Hitler prior to and during during W.W.II, and of course all the threats and stand offs of the Cold War. Also unmentioned is the significant U.S. financial and political support for the Maidan revolt, senior U.S. politician's stupid enough to show up in person and do a Photo Op with known right wing Ukrainian radicals. ..Why now would Russia be paranoid?

Regarding Democracy: Democracy means many things, one of them, if you're unhappy with your elected governments decision(s), you wait for the next election. Russia's far superior economic offer to the Ukraine that sparked protests aside, Ukraine now joins Venezuela and Egypt in other recent examples of U.S. policy and dedication to democratic principles, agitating to overthrow a democratically elected government and then pretend it's a democracy. Also unmentioned is the February 2014 Agreement brokered by all sides that called for early elections and a temporary unification government that was supposed to end the Maidan stand off. Instead, right after Klitschko announced it to Maidan protesters Fascist elements went on a violent rampage, sacking and burning government buildings, including the Presidents residence, and hunting down the President which led to his flight. What could Putin have done if Ukrainian "regime" change came about through early monitored elections? Nobody's asking. One thing's for sure, if Putin would have intervened after elections we'd at least have an argument. Now we just look foolish. And aggressive. Again.

[swilton]

7. ++++

[KoKo]

6. K&R...

[swilton]

8. Todd Pierce USA (Ret)

was one of the questioners and warrants a footnote/reference - he was a former Guantanamo Defense Attorney


http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/07/03/video-todd-pierce-discusses-the-lawlessness-of-guantanamos-military-commissions-on-london-real/