Sunday Foreign Edition

Hey all.  Time for another Sunday roundup of international news and opinion.


Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s lawyer at the International Herald Tribune cries foul.  The Guardian is livid, as is Simon Tisdall.  Even WashPo gets in on the action.  Personally, my favorite article on the topic is Julia Ioffe’s at Foreign PolicyDavid Satter at Daily Beast is also high up there.

Vladimir Rhyzkov at the Moscow Times gives a rundown of the stats on Russia’s decline into a fractured, economically stagnant, Third World kleptocracy and forecasts an even grimmer prediction for the future.

Miriam Elder at the Global Post reports that nationalism in Russia has become a destabilizing, centrifugal force.


Teng Baio at the Wall Street Journal gives a personal account of the Chinese police state.

Michael Richardson at the Japan Times ponders how China’s increasing reliance on imported fossil fuels will impact its foreign policy and concludes that rather than picking fights with its neighbors over resource claims in shared waters, China’s best strategy is to avoid conflict, so that multinational petroleum companies will feel safe enough to work with the PRC.  I am doubtful.


Madhu Kishwar at the Times of India reports that economic liberalization in his country needs work, particularly in the agricultural sector, and particularly in onion policy.


The New York Times tentatively reports that the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan is succeeding.  The Telegraph concurs, saying it looks like a corner has been turned.

The Diplomat has an interview with Haider Mullick discussing the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

Reuel Marc Gerecht (KPR: +2.7) at The New Republic has a long, ramble-y piece on how the U.S. and the CIA needs to give Pakistan more time to change its wicked ways.


Michael Green at the Korea JoongAng Daily gives concrete detail on what a deterrence/rollback strategy against North Korea would look like.

The Center for New American Security, in the same vein, recently released a report on how to equip the South Korean military so that it can defeat and occupy North Korea (the report phrases things a little more delicately).

David Kang at The National Interest makes the case that long-term deterrence will be easy, and there is no need for regime change.

Peter Beck at Foreign Policy details a plan for peace on the peninsula that I think is 1) The Chinese game plan going forward, 2)  The first-best option, and 3) Probably not achievable.


Ray Takeyh at the International Herald Tribune says the Iranian regime is losing legitimacy among both elites and the populace.

Reuel Marc Gerecht (KPR +2.7) and Mark Dubowitz at the Weekly Standard make the case (in Gerecht’s typical, detail-laden circuitous fashion) that sanctions against Iran’s oil exports offer the best pathway to ending the Ayatollah’s nuclear weapons program, and that any deal allowing enrichment in Iran will be a defeat.


Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic ponders whether Israel loves annexing territory from the West Bank more than it loves democracy.


Anne Applebaum (KPR +1.8) at the Washington Post opines on the threats to democracy in Hungary.

This entry was posted in Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply