• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди735
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1037
      • Показать ещё
      Разное957
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации164
      • Показать ещё
      Формат15
      Издания151
      • Показать ещё
      Компании368
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели45
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы4
21 февраля, 19:02

The Art of the Deal: Can Trump Reach Agreement on Ukraine with Putin?

Douglas Macgregor Security, Eurasia Washington and Moscow may never be friends, but they can be limited liability partners. President Donald Trump, an American nationalist committed to the restoration of America’s economic prosperity, particularly the strength of its middle class and the rule of law and peace abroad, is now pitted against President Vladimir Putin, the Russian nationalist, on key national-security matters in Europe. It’s unclear what the final result will be, but as Trump argued in April 2016, it’s definitely time for a new American strategy. For the Trump administration to reshape relations with Moscow, it’s important to realize that Vladimir Putin, like his country, has a foot in two camps—the Bolshevik and the Tsarist camps. George Kennan’s advice to President Truman in 1947 is still instructive: “It is a sine qua non of successful dealing with Russia,” he wrote, that “demands on Russian policy should be put forward in such a manner as to leave the way open for a compliance not too detrimental to Russian prestige.” Putin is calculating, well educated and self-aware. Putin was not surprised that his seizure of Crimea provoked a military confrontation with the West. And despite damaging sanctions and almost universal hostility to Moscow’s act, Putin guided Russia through the economic storm with surprising success. Read full article

21 февраля, 04:08

Trump Can Learn From Morgenthau's 6 Principles of Political Realism

Nathan A. Sears Global Governance, Americas What might Morgenthau have to say about the administration's emerging foreign policy? Hans Morgenthau was a leading postwar intellectual of political realism in the international relations discipline and, at times, an outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy. In his 1949 article, “The Primacy of the National Interest,” Morgenthau criticized the Truman Doctrine for placing universal moral principles (e.g., the promotion of freedom and democracy) above the national interest as the standard for U.S. foreign policy, and in the 1960s he became a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War. Following Morgenthau’s legacy of dissent on U.S. foreign policy, a group of international relations scholars (including prominent realists) in the U.S. academy published a piece in the New York Times in September 2002, warning the U.S. government that war against Iraq would not be in the national interest. While a clear “Trump Doctrine” is yet to materialize, the foreign-policy inclinations of the new administration are detectable from President Trump’s campaign rhetoric and his first weeks in the White House. What might Morgenthau have to say about the administration’s emerging foreign policy? Read full article

20 февраля, 15:37

The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Squadrons Are Broken

David Axe Security, Two-thirds of Hornets are down for maintenance.  Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. Navy’s roughly 800 F/A-18 strike fighters are grounded owing to budget-driven maintenance delays, according to Defense News, a trade publication. Now the sailing branch is struggling to make up the shortfall. Sixty-two percent of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornets are unflyable, the Navy told Defense News. Twenty-seven percent of Hornets and Super Hornets are undergoing major depot work. Thirty-five percent await minor maintenance or parts. “Our shipyards and aviation depots are struggling to get our ships and airplanes through maintenance periods on time,” Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Moran told the House Armed Services Committee in mid-February 2017. Historically, around a quarter of Navy aircraft are unflyable at any given time. Currently, around half of all of the fleet’s planes and helicopters are grounded. Depot work, flight-line maintenance and spare parts have all suffered from nine years of budgetary dysfunction. The U.S. Congress hasn’t passed an annual federal budget on time — the fiscal year starts in October — since 2008. Instead, lawmakers use “continuing resolutions,” which extend the previous year’s funding levels for each program, giving the politicians more time to haggle the details of the new budget. But continuing resolutions don’t allow for changing needs. If planes fly more often than service planners expect and require more maintenance than in the previous year, there might not be enough money to pay for the work. Spares-shortages force the Navy to strip parts from some F/A-18s in order to keep others airworthy. In early 2016, the commodore of Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic, Capt. Randy Stearns, had to borrow parts from three F/A-18 squadrons in order to keep the four Hornet squadrons in USS Harry S. Truman’s Carrier Air Wing 7 in combat over Iraq longer than originally planned. Read full article

19 февраля, 16:41

DON SURBER: Historians Sense Obama Failed. Only 12th best? Gee, you would think in light of t…

DON SURBER: Historians Sense Obama Failed. Only 12th best? Gee, you would think in light of the last eight years of hosannas from the press, Barack Obama would rank with Washington and Lincoln among America’s academics. But nope, he was only 12th. . . . The rankings by category show a distinctly affirmative action grading […]

14 февраля, 02:36

Analysis: North Korea Gives Donald Trump A Nuclear Crisis From Hell

George W. Bush invaded Iraq to remove its – ultimately nonexistent – weapons of mass destruction. Barack Obama used cyber weaponry and sanctions to deter Iran from building its own atomic bomb. Now Donald Trump faces North Korea, but stopping its nuclear and missile program may prove impossible, creating what may be his first and perhaps defining international crisis. Trump has been left to confront North Korea’s nuclear activities because his predecessors failed to manage them. The regime in Pyongyang, meanwhile, continues to build ever more dangerous – and hard-to-destroy or intercept – weapons systems. North Korea has been a thorn in the side of the United States since the days of Harry S. Truman. The Korean War came dangerously close to sparking a nuclear confrontation, with the White House preventing U.S. commander Douglas MacArthur from using atomic weapons to stop the Chinese and North Korean armies. Under Pyongyang’s current leader Kim Jong-un, it is reaching what may be its most dangerous point since then. Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a host of disagreements with Trump. They think he is wrong on immigration, too soft on Russia, too dangerously hawkish on China. On North Korea they are in the same hole as he is with no real ideas about how to get out. This is a crisis everyone has seen coming. That’s why Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been so desperate to court Trump, visiting him even before the inauguration. As North Korea launched an intermediate medium-range ballistic missile on Sunday, Abe was once again with the president – this time on a golf and bonding trip to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida retreat. It’s also why U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis made his first official trip to the region. His priority was to reassure Japan and South Korea in particular that the United States would stand with them – whatever noises Trump made during his election campaign. Pyongyang first demonstrated its ability to detonate a crude nuclear device in 2006 – becoming the only Iraq- or Iran-style “rogue state” to ever get that far. Since then, it has continued to develop not just the bombs but also the missiles to deliver them. Ultimately, the regime would love to have the ability to strike the continental United States – a prospect Trump has tweeted to say “won’t happen”. For now, however, there are few signs anyone has a plan to stop it. It’s not that Pyongyang has ambitions to launch some kind of unilateral strike – that would be suicidal. What it wants is a deterrent to protect it from any kind of Iraq- or Libya-style “regime change”. To achieve that, it first needs a limited number of land-based nuclear-tipped rockets with the ability to strike at least as far as Japan. Each test brings that goal closer. In the slightly longer term, it wants to be able to mount rockets and warheads on a small fleet of diesel electric submarines. These could be positioned offshore or along its mountainous coastline, hard to track and destroy and – because of the unpredictability of their locations – harder to intercept should the rockets one day be launched. Nothing the United States has done has seriously frustrated that ambition. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, Bush had limited success in using financial aid – and the threat of greater sanctions – to persuade Pyongyang to slow its program, even demolishing a cooling tower at the nuclear facility in Yongbyon. That still wasn’t enough to stop the 2006 nuclear test. And with the accession of Kim Jong-un after the death of his father in 2011, North Korea has been much more single-minded in its atomic ambitions. Following the apparent success of the Stuxnet computer worm against the Iranian nuclear program, there are suggestions the Obama administration tried something similar against North Korea, but the attempt was much less successful. Such covert activities have likely continued, but they may not be enough. Since Bill Clinton in the nineties, successive U.S. presidents have been presented with options for more direct action such as air and missile strikes. How successful they would be, however, has never been clear. Pyongyang has no shortage of ways in which it could respond, not least through using conventional artillery to strike U.S. and South Korean targets. The South Korean capital, with its population of more than 10 million, is firmly in range of North Korean guns which, like its nuclear program, are believed to be stored in deep, hard–to-destroy bunkers. One option now on the table would be for the United States to attempt to intercept a future North Korean missile test with some of its anti-ballistic missiles in the region. That didn’t happen on Sunday, perhaps in part because that test occurred over a relatively short distance, mostly over or near North Korean territory. Attempting to shoot down a longer-range missile test would be easier – but the success of such an action could never be guaranteed. If it failed, the United States would essentially have advertised its inability to intercept a North Korean missile, sparking even greater concern in the region. The political fallout of a botched intercept would also be significant for any U.S. president. That leaves diplomatic options, such as applying pressure through China. Beijing’s economic support for North Korea is vital to its survival, and the topic was likely high on the agenda during Trump’s first call with the Chinese premier. But China is reluctant to do anything that might bring about the collapse of the regime and potentially put South Korean or U.S. troops on its border. Beijing has also long argued that anything it did to undermine North Korea might hasten the unraveling of the regime, bringing with it the danger that Pyongyang might lash out, perhaps with nuclear force. There are a variety of potential targets for North Korea even if it cannot reach the United States. They include regional U.S. bases such as Guam as well as South Korea. Many experts believe a Japanese target might be the most likely, not least because of lingering resentment over atrocities in World War Two. In time, that threat might be enough to prompt Tokyo to acquire its own nuclear arsenal – something that would antagonize Beijing, and arguably make the region even more volatile. Trump may see himself as a master of the “art of the deal”, and has raised the prospect he might meet North Korean leaders. His problem is that there may be no deal to be done. This situation may become more dangerous – perhaps until something truly cataclysmic happens. function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

12 февраля, 18:06

Donald Trump Only Knows How to Do One Thing -- And It Isn't Being President

It is time to stop pretending that Donald Trump has the intelligence, integrity, or understanding to be President. He is not smart, he is not a good person, and he is not even a good businessman. If he was smart, he would not talk about how smart he is all the time. If he was a good person, he would not lie all the time. And if he was a good businessman, he would release the tax forms and other records to prove it. He only knows how to do one thing, and it is a technique that got him pretty far on reality television and as a famous-for-being-famous-type celebrity. It has now catapulted him into a job he did not want and is hopelessly inadequate for. He knows it and yet has neither the will nor the ability to learn from his mistakes and rise to the occasion. The sole and only thing Donald Trump knows how to do is what economists call "externalizing." That means making others pay for your choices or behavior. He uses this technique in business and in responding to criticism. Trump is a one-trick pony who externalized his costs over and over to make money by using the bankruptcy and tax laws and underpaying his contractors and those who worked for him to force others to pay the costs of his failures while he got to keep the profits. Those gains are probably less than he claims, of course, because otherwise he would show us the details. That's it. That's all he knows how to do. He also uses this same technique to deflect any criticism or failure by thuggishly and childishly blaming anyone else, externalizing responsibility, with complete disregard for the truth. This is so reflexive it sometimes also reveals a complete disregard for the consequences. For example, he has bizarrely insisted on staying on as producer of his television competition series, "The New Celebrity Apprentice," yet another of his massive conflicts of interest, and presumably something he no longer has time for. So you'd think he was personally, reputationally, and financially invested in the show's success. But he is so incapable of understanding anything other than his own limited notion of "winning" that instead he tweets about how much better his ratings were than those of the new host, Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is willing to drive his own show into the ground to prevent Schwarzenegger from doing well. The indispensable RoguePOTUSstaff got it exactly right, explaining that Trump doesn't care about succeeding; he only cares about "winning." So anything that goes wrong is always everyone else's fault. With complete disregard for the truth -- or any notion of personal responsibility -- he blames the media, Democrats, China, the CIA, or anyone else who has not paid absolute fealty and lavishly praised him. Remember John F. Kennedy's speech after the failed Bay of Pigs mission, which contributed immeasureably to his reputation for honesty and candor. Compare that to Trump's response to the failed mission in Yemen that resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL and an American child. Not only does he still continue to insist that it was a "winning" mission, but when Senator John McCain, one of the foremost experts on military operations and a member of his own party, criticized him, Trump said via tweets, "Sen. McCain should not be talking about the success or failure of a mission to the media. Only emboldens the enemy! He's been losing so...long he doesn't know how to win anymore." Note that none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the facts or the substance. Insult is not argument. But Trump never explains why his view is different; he just disparages critics and accuses the other side of bad motives, whether it's a judge who has an ethnic last name or was appointed by a Democrat or a hit Broadway show he has not seen but is sure is "overrated." Tellingly this favorite insult implies that he knows something the rest of us haven't caught onto yet. Trump also tries to obfuscate with "alternative facts" he just makes up. He told a group of sheriffs that the murder rate is up while as they know very well it is down, less than half its peak. Or he makes up a claim of "serious voter fraud" in New Hampshire. If he has evidence for these claims, we deserve to see it. If not, it is clear this is just another attempt to offload responsibility for his actions and statements. Trump is curiously silent when he knows that an inconvenient truth is too clear to lie about. The suspect in the massacre of Muslims at a Canadian mosque is a white man with far right views, so Trump could not find a way to make it fit his narrative. Not even a tweet. But when Nordstrom decided to stop carrying Ivanka Trump's clothing line due to poor sales, that got a response. It is in no way a legal or legitimate topic for him to address via his official Presidential twitter account (and, reportedly while attending an intelligence briefing). But he did, not by making a business case but by whining that the decision was "unfair" -- Nordstrom should carry the brand because "She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing!" One would hope that a man who brands himself as a businessman would recognize that commercial enterprises make decisions based on numbers. Trump's response to any criticism or complaint is the same as the Wizard of Oz's: "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Or, in the words of Shaggy, that famous exemplar of avoiding personal responsibility regardless of the facts, "It wasn't me." There's an old lawyer joke that if the facts are against you, you argue the law; if the law is against you, you argue the facts, and if the facts and the law are against you, you yell and bang the table. Trump does not know or care whether the facts or law are with him. He goes straight to the yelling and table-banging, and adds some insults just to keep people distracted and agitated. Look at his insistence on denying a conversation between his Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and Senator Richard Blumenthal, as confirmed by Gorsuch's own White House-appointed spokesman. I hereby suggest a new hashtag: #Trumpsplaining. The problem is that Trump is now in the one job where externalizing costs and blame does not work. The President of the United States must consider all issues holistically because there is no one to externalize the costs onto except for other Americans. For example, consider the wall along the border of Mexico that was one of Trump's core campaign promises. He insisted that Mexico would pay for it, a classic example of externalization of costs. Mexico has said quite clearly that they will not. So, Trump has said that the US will fund it initially, and recoup the costs via tariffs. This overlooks the obvious consequence to US consumers, retailers, and manufacturers who will end up paying for any increase in the costs of sending produce and goods across the border. And Trump's much-touted (by himself) deal with Carrier to "save 1100 jobs" came at great expense to Indiana taxpayers, who now have to pay for the $7 million in tax breaks Indiana had to give to Carrier to "save" those jobs. This is known as a cost, a subsidy, or corporate welfare. Furthermore, the "saved" jobs number is inflated and Carrier is using some of its windfall to automate even more jobs, so that number will decrease futher, not a very good deal for the people of Indiana paying at least $6000 per job "saved." Here are some of the qualities one needs to be President, no matter which party or policies: the ability to handle both legitimate and illegitimate criticism with humility and grace, more than a 140-character attention span, a commitment to understanding other points of view, respect for expertise, a willingness to compromise, curiosity, diplomacy, and a commitment to be open and candid with the American people. Any President has to have a deep understanding and appreciation for the Constitution and balance of powers. President is not the same as emperor. He doesn't get things done Jean-Luc Picard-style by barking "Make it so." Congress and the courts both have rights, obligations, and powers and calling them "so-called" does not make that go away. The President has to accept full responsibility for bad decisions as well as good ones. Remember the sign on Harry S. Truman's desk in the Oval Office: The Buck Stops Here. That is the opposite of externalizing costs and blame, a technique that may have taken Donald Trump to the White House but which will not make him to keep his promises or meet his obligations. One might say he is overrated. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

09 февраля, 19:52

Not Even Andrew Jackson Went as Far as Trump in Attacking the Courts

The former president was critical of Chief Justice John Marshall’s rulings. But it was on constitutional, rather than political or personal, grounds.

08 февраля, 15:12

JONATHAN RAUCH: For this article, I set out to develop a list of telltales that the president is …

JONATHAN RAUCH: For this article, I set out to develop a list of telltales that the president is endangering the Constitution and threatening democracy. I failed. In fact, I concluded that there can be no such list, because many of the worrisome things that an antidemocratic president might do look just like things that other […]

08 февраля, 04:30

Confronting This Crisis Could Unite America under Trump

John Richard Cookson Politics, Americas A domestic challenge to take Trump beyond the first 100 days. Forget the first one hundred days. The frenetic pace of executive orders coming from the White House cannot be sustained over four years. The Trump administration needs to start identifying bigger issues to tackle, those that will take months, even years, to solve. All the better if the president’s approval numbers are bolstered by having the issues be readily appreciated by a broad range of Americans. That means the issues should be domestic, bipartisan and well executed. As one prominent Republican official from the George W. Bush administration recently tweeted, “Pres Trump would be wise to slow down & get right things done right. Presidencies judged by 4 year not 4 week record.” Yes, charging out of the gate has been a practice of presidents for most of the last century. Administrations have known that time is limited and momentum quickly swings back in favor of the other party. In fact, going back to President Harry S. Truman, every president’s party has lost seats in the House or Senate in the midterm of the president’s first term. The one exception is George W. Bush, who saw modest gains in both the House and Senate for Republicans in 2002. Coming so soon after 9/11, however, this midterm took place under the shadow of unusual—and one hopes unduplicated—circumstances. Otherwise, since the 1940s, the trend has held. Yet this time is different. The 2018 midterm is unprecedented in its advantages for the president’s party. Only one Republican senator is up for reelection in a state won by Hillary Clinton in 2016, but ten Democratic senators are up in states Trump won. A Republican supermajority in the Senate is in sight. Looking at the 2018 map, the Washington Post summed up, “It's not just that Democrats have so many vulnerabilities. It's that Republicans have so few.” The Trump administration and congressional Republicans, then, need not just a one-hundred-day strategy, but a one-hundred-week strategy, one that will carry them into the 2018 midterm in good standing with the American people. Read full article

06 февраля, 17:31

An Open Letter to Secretary of State Tillerson and Incoming State Department Political Appointees

New Leaders and Members of the State Department: The past two weeks have not made your job any easier. I cringed when I heard Sean Spicer tell foreign and civil servants, 70,000 strong, that they are "career bureaucrats" and if they do not agree with President Trump's opinions and his "vision" they should either get with the program or they can go. I can imagine those words were not well received, to say the least, by the members of the Department, those who know what the Department does and its integral role in advancing the interests of and protecting the nation, and others who understand the sacrifices one makes to serve the country. State Department personnel are not easily offended or caught off-guard. Their job is to be just the opposite even in the most harrowing of circumstances. Look at Ryan Crocker's career. He was ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon. In three of those postings, a predecessor of his was assassinated. He felt that made his service even more important. Or our former Ambassador to Haiti who slept on a cot in his office at the Embassy for weeks following the earthquake, while his family returned to the States. Or the dozens of other stories you will hear. The men and women of the State Department know their job involves risk. They deserve the country's respect and support. Not to be threatened by the spokesman for the country who had hardly been on the job more than a week. I am not one for presenting criticisms without sharing some of my own thoughts and recommendations. Here are some: The Harry S. Truman Building. the actual building, is daunting. It is not configured in a logical way and the idea of flow, well it doesn't exist. It has color-coded stripes, like you'd find in an airport, along the top of the white walls to help you know where you are. You will need help navigating it. Ask for it. Otherwise you will inevitably miss your meeting walking in circles. Needing this guidance is also a perfect metaphor for the guidance you will need to learn the Building, with a capital B, how it works and might be improved. Patriots. You each have the opportunity to call the members of one of the finest "work forces" in the world you colleagues. Members of the civil and foreign service professionals, third-party nationals, foreign service nationals and beyond. There's little question that you care about our country, but these men and women will redefine what it means to be a patriot. Always get their take, but also learn their stories. Many will floor you. Foreign Service Officers. Foreign Service Officers sign-up for a life that involves changing roles every two years. Often this means uprooting a family and moving to a new country. And too frequently it means living on one's own during a high risk posting. These men and women are on the front-lines every day. Their uniforms looks quite different from those in the military, but they too are service officers. Help make sure the White House understands that. A successful foreign policy requires a State Department that knows its work matters. Alphabet Soup. Learn to love Alphabet Soup. It will soon be your favorite kind. But at first it will thoroughly confuse you and sound like an alien language. Whether your new name is simply one letter, like S (the Secretary), D (the Deputy Secretary) or your office has multiple letters like M/PRI (Management Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation) everyone is working towards a common mission--and in the interest of the country. Diplomatic Security. The members of Diplomatic Security put their lives on the line every day to protect Americans abroad, and some at home. They are brave. They are stoic. Show them the respect and appreciation they deserve. Too often their discretion can mask their presence. Don't let it. And don't let Congress play political games with it. Ops, the Line and the ExecSec. Each of these are lifesavers. Sometimes quite literally so. They can get anyone on the phone at any time anywhere, even if you don't know where they are. They know the processes and how to get things done in the most efficient manner. They will make sure your trips are smooth. It is hard to grasp just how much they do. And they are true professionals. From PRM to Pretoria, Legal Advisor to Lisbon. Your colleagues at home at Embassies and Consulates around the world have tremendous knowledge. The majority of the time, whether a civil service or foreign service member, it is likely it will be far greater than yours. Lean on them. Not doing so is in no one's best interest. Respect the Press Corps. The State Department and the White House are the only two daily press briefings by the Government. The world is watching. Much of the press corps has been around the Department for some time. They know how things work and have a deep understanding of the issues. They get policy. But they also get the "politics" at play on the world stage. Show them respect. They are an important resource in getting your message out to the world. Little Things Matter. Listen to Protocol. It may seem like international trips are old hat, but your trips are seen through a different lens. What colors you wear can be the difference between a successful trip and one in which tensions flair. Protocol literally designs the spaces where diplomacy happens. Embrace Opinions and Dissent. A decision in the nation's interest requires information from people who sit in different roles, in different countries, and with different opinions. That is a good thing. Intimidating them from sharing ideas serves no one, least of all the American people. The Dissent Channel exists for a reason. The Administration must not take it personally and it must respect it. You Will Be Frustrated. With 70,000 employees, the Department of State is not any organization to make quick changes to. It takes time. Communication about the changes one has in mind is critical. That is not to say that there aren't things that would benefit from new processes or thinking. Crises. There will inevitably be both man-made and natural disasters during your time at State. Calm is the key. Consular officers will wow you with their abilities. The Ops Center will transform into a command post-like area. The SVTC rooms will become all too familiar. But it is in these moments that State truly shines. The Names on the Wall. If ever you wonder whether what you and your colleagues matter, or the importance of the Department, just go to the first floor and look at the names on the wall. You are serving with people who, while knowing the risks, have chosen to serve. Many can name at least one fallen colleague and they press on. These some of these are things I learned during my time at State and since. Working at State is a truly awesome responsibility and humbling experience. And so much of it is because of the people. Please ask for, and embrace, their opinions and suggestions. Respect their work and sacrifices. And enjoy having truly remarkable colleagues. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 февраля, 17:15

Сногсшибательная рюмка: самые улётные коктейли московских баров

Жидкий ток Александр Кан — известный российский бармен, занимающийся миксологией, историей коктейля и созданием концепций, а также, что вполне логично, совладелец нескольких московских баров и ресторанов. Одно из самых знаменитых его произведений (по-другому и не назовёшь!) — коктейль из водки с берёзовым соком "Исаев": всего два компонента, но их использование придаёт результату истинно русский характер.Есть в арсенале Кана и другие удивительные экспонаты — например, "Тесла". — Этот коктейль при подаче светится и трещит, имитируя электрический разряд, — объяснил Лайфу бармен. — Трещит он за счёт карамели-шипучки, которая лопается при контакте с жидкостью, а светится специальный лёд. "Тесла" — не самый крепкий коктейль, но очень хмельной, буквально 2–3 напитка, и вы ощущаете эффект. В состав входит сербский айвовый дистиллят, у него сильное действие. Или, например, "Севиче Мэри". — Это один из моих хитов, он представляет собой коктейль с закуской в виде задымлённого маринованного лосося. Коктейль готовится на основе водки, томатов пилати, устричного соуса, кинзы, специй и дыма. Маринад для закусочного лосося я тоже "задымляю" (это делается при помощи дымного пистолета), и рыба в итоге становится подкопчённой по вкусу. Коктейль наливается в бокал, сверху кладётся лосось на шпажке, и всё это накрывается стеклянной крышкой, под которую также напускается дым из ольховых щепок. В целом можно отнести этот коктейль к типу "Кровавой Мэри". У такого "блюда" даже наименование пришлось поменять: вместо cocktail я называю его foodtail, ведь напиток здесь подаётся как гастрономия. Да-да, мартини Вопрос об "убойных" коктейлях мы задали и команде BarShow Place. — Коктейль "Драй мартини", — прозвучал ответ. — Что, серьёзно? Как же вы его тогда подаёте, чтобы впечатлить? Этим дурацким вопросом автор, конечно, выдала в себе алкогольного дилетанта, но ребята были снисходительны. — Наверное, вы, как и все, путаете с вермутом "Мартини". А в "Драй мартини" входит 8 частей джина и 2 части сухого вермута. А ещё кладутся оливки, чтобы можно было закусить первый крепкий глоток. Напиток подаётся в коктейльной рюмке. Отметим, что этот коктейль стал уже поистине риторическим. В своей слабости к "Драй мартини" признавались и Гарри Трумэн, и Эрнест Хемингуэй, и Уинстон Черчилль. У последнего, кстати, были свои представления о рецепте приготовления: "Я наливаю в стакан джин и бросаю взгляд на бутылку вермута, стоящую в дальнем углу комнаты". Результат сэр Черчилль называл "очень сухим мартини". "Бум" об стол — Как-то раз пришёл очень умудрённый жизнью юноша — во всяком случае, именно такое впечатление он пытался произвести: скептический взгляд, вальяжные движения, скучный тон. И вот он сел за стойку и заказал один из самых бронебойных коктейлей, в миру называемый "Абсент-бум", — припоминает бармен Doctor Dino.— Если рассказывать упрощённо, то для его приготовления нужно налить в бокал для шампанского (а лучше — в стакан объёмом 150 мл) 30 мл абсента, аккуратно долить сверху шампанского, прикрыть его другим бокалом и пару раз несильно стукнуть об стойку — так, чтобы вспенить шампанское. Выпить залпом. Дальше можно спокойно падать. Юноша свой перформанс так и завершил: выпил, посидел немного и, начав вставать, запутался в переплетении многочисленных ножек (собственных и стула). Слава богу, не расшибся, но лоск свой точно растерял. Примерно та же история с ещё одним видом экстремальной культуры пития, считает Doctor Dino. — Некоторые пытаются доказать свою молодецкую удаль и заказывают сразу несколько шотов. Например, набор из "Чёрного русского" (водка и калуа), "Опухоли мозга" (персиковый ликёр, гренадин, самбука, бейлис), "Белого тумана" (абсент, мятный ликер, настойка ангостуры) и, скажем, "Унесённых ветром" (гальяно, калуа и кюрасао). Выпивается всё максимально быстро, очередью (это, кстати, отдельный вызов бармену, ведь ему надо вовремя и правильно всё подготовить, поджечь, смешать, налить, перелить). Клиент в итоге сидит никакой, все вкусы перемешались, да ещё и пил так быстро, что всё внимание обратил на скорость, а не на ощущения. По словам бармена, подобные развлечения хороши только раз в жизни — в первый. — Это интересный опыт, необычные ощущения от резко наступающего опьянения. Но такие эксперименты, мне кажется, годятся разве только для пробы, когда просто потягивать алкоголь уже совсем скучно. В таких случаях опьянение не очень приятное: человека сразу развозит, размаривает и речь идёт уже не о лёгком и весёлом состоянии, а о том, что теперь надо бы прийти в себя и какая-то часть вечеринки пройдёт мимо. Три популярных во всём мире коктейля на основе водкиПьём "Кровь дьявола", закусываем "Беовульфом"7 алкогольных напитков, вызывающих самое ужасное похмелье

06 февраля, 15:54

Made in London no more: will property speculation kill industry in the capital?

As more manufacturers are moved to make way for identikit apartment blocks, London is losing industrial land at an alarming rate. An economy that provides nearly one in 10 of London’s jobs is being smotheredBeefeaters’ red uniforms, Ford motor engines, Truman’s beer, Brompton bikes – they all share the proud hallmark of being made in London. But for how much longer? The capital is cannibalising its industry, eating its productive space from the inside out, as the manufacturers and makers are moved to give way for the incessant march of housing. In attempting to solve one crisis, we are walking blindfold into another. Continue reading...

04 февраля, 12:00

The Cold War: From Churchill to Yeltsin

The Cold War, lasting from the end of World War II until the collapse of the Soviet Union, witnessed nearly half a century of antagonism between the USSR and the U.S., as well as their allies. The term “Cold War” was first coined by British writer George Orwell in a 1945 article entitled “You and the Atomic Bomb.” Two years later the Bernard Baruch, an advisor to U.S. President Harry S. Truman, became the first to use the term in an official speech. By 1945 the conditions that had brought about the  Cold War were already in place. By then the Soviet Union had established control over Eastern Europe, leading the UK and U.S. to view it as a threat. The Cold War was finally triggered by Winston Churchill’s March 1946 speech in Fulton. In that speech, he stressed that “the United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power,” while also commending the valor of the Russian people. However, he saw the growth of communist parties in European countries as dangerous. The Cold War was finally triggered by Winston Churchill’s March 1946 speech in Fulton. Source: AP Pushing communism back The ideological justification for the Cold War was outlined in 1947 in the Truman Doctrine, where the U.S. President argued that communism and capitalism were irreconcilable and the objective of the U.S. was to contain communism within the borders of the USSR. The U.S. then began to surround the USSR with a network of military bases. By 1948 the first bombers armed with atomic bombs targeted at the USSR were deployed in the UK and West Germany. At the same time, the Soviet Union was negotiating with Turkey for a naval base in the Black Sea Straits. In 1949 the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb, followed by the first U.S. test of a hydrogen bomb in 1952, where the atomic bomb is merely the catalyst for a blast many times the magnitude of a simple nuclear explosion. The Soviet Union was not far behind, however, and tested its own hydrogen bomb in 1953. Military spending grew and military alliances were created: NATO, the Warsaw Pact, ANZUS. The Cold War frontlines were not found at national borders, but within them. In France and Italy around a third of the population supported the communist party, but under pressure from the U.S. and conditions attached to the promise of aid for post-war reconstruction, communists were excluded from government. The pro-communist governments of Eastern Europe refused U.S. aid, cementing the division of Europe. Ideological collision In both camps dissidents were subject to repression: In the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries people were arrested and sometimes shot on charges of cosmopolitanism; in the West undercover communist and agents of the USSR were exposed. In the 1960s, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the two superpowers moved to a policy of gradual détente. They signed a number of treaties limiting the ongoing Arms Race. By 1979, however, the two countries were back on hostile terms. Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan and the U.S. imposed economic sanctions against the USSR. In 1983, U.S. President Reagan called the USSR an “evil empire” and put forward a proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative – a missile defense system intended to protect the U.S. from nuclear attack. Thaw in relations In 1985, Gorbachev came to power and announced wide-ranging reforms that included a provision for the improvement of relations with capitalist countries. Russian President Boris Yeltsin oversaw the official end of the Cold War on Feb. 1, 1992 at a meeting with George Bush. “I have not come here with an outstretched hand asking for help,” remarked the Russian president during his visit, adding that “it is crucial now not to let economic reforms collapse in Russia.” In 1985, Gorbachev came to power and announced wide-ranging reforms that included a provision for the improvement of relations with capitalist countries. Source: AP Following the talks, a joint declaration was signed by Russia and the U.S., stressing that “Russia and the United States do not view each other as potential opponents” and intend to build a relationship rooted in friendship, partnership and mutual understanding. The declaration also stated that the two countries would make an effort to eliminate any remnants of hostility from the Cold War, to ensure the spread of common values, and to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional advanced weapons systems. In his book Cold War: Politicians, Generals, Spies, journalist Leonid Mletchin described the end of the Cold War as: “The Cold War ended and everything disappeared like a hallucination – the fear of war, the nuclear threat, the enemy at the gate. For the first time in decades a sense of security emerged. So many years were spent arming to the teeth, but the threat and fear of war only grew. And suddenly it became clear that security does not depend on the size of the military arsenal, that the Cold War is not inevitable, that it is not a continuation of eternal geopolitical conflicts. The Cold War exists in our heads and that is why it can end as easily as it started.” First published in Russian by Gazeta.ru Read more: Leonid Brezhnev: General Secretary of stability and stagnation>>>

03 февраля, 22:50

Trump’s Low Approval Numbers Matter — Here’s Why

President Trump entered the White House with the lowest approval ratings any president has had when taking office, and they aren’t likely to go up for a sustained period of time. Even if Trump doesn’t believe the polls, as he has avowed, such low approval ratings are likely to have real consequences for him. On the day he took the oath of office, Gallup’s tracker showed that only 45% of the American public said that they approved of the job Trump was doing, with an equal number disapproving. Since then, his approval has declined slightly, and his disapproval has risen to historically high levels. To put these figures in context, George W. Bush, who also won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, came into office with a 57% approval rating. It’s more typical for presidents to start with an approval rating over 60%, as Obama, Carter, and Eisenhower did, even if no one expects a modern president to start over 70%, as Johnson, Ford, and Kennedy did. What all of these presidents have in common is that they only retained their high approval ratings for about three months — what presidency scholars call “the honeymoon period,” before they began to dip significantly. These drops aren’t inevitable — national crises can cause people to rally around the president, as they did after Reagan was shot — but they’re the general rule. So if Trump’s approval numbers are middling-to-poor now, they’re likely to get worse soon.   The fact that Gallup and other polling houses have been measuring presidential approval since Harry Truman means that political scientists understand a great deal about how it works. In general, approval is highest when a president takes office and declines fairly slowly throughout the first term. Wars can temporarily boost approval, sometimes to stratospheric heights, but such boosts are generally short-lived. Presidential approval can be thought of as somewhat elastic: In statistical terms, we say that it has a strong memory function. Events can push approval up or down, but as my work with Matthew Lebo on presidential approval has shown, it reverts fairly quickly to its natural level. There are two factors that seem able to keep approval above or below its natural level for longer periods: the economy and media coverage. In the same line of research, Lebo and I have shown that unemployment and inflation serve to push approval ratings up or down, at least among some voters, and work I’ve carried out on the Obama and Bush years shows that sustained media coverage, positive or negative, can move a president’s approval above or below where it’s expected to be. Trump faces challenges on both these points: Unemployment and inflation are historically low right now, making it unlikely that he’ll be able to improve on them much, and media coverage of every president since Clinton has been dominantly negative, a trend that Trump doesn’t seem likely to change. Any efforts Trump may take to increase his approval ratings are further hampered by the increasing partisan divide in American politics. Up until Reagan, approval of the president among members of his party was 30–40 points higher than among members of the other party. Under Reagan, averaging over the course of his time in office, the gap was 52 points. Under George W. Bush, 58. Under Obama, 66. In Trump’s first week, he had 89% approval among Republicans and just 13% approval among Democrats, making for a 76-point gap. In essence, the only way Trump can increase his approval is by appealing to independents and Democrats, something he has shown little interest in doing thus far.   These low approval ratings, which are likely to only get worse, are a problem for Trump even if he doesn’t give them any credence, because any major policy initiative requires that he work with people who do pay attention to them. High approval ratings give a president a great deal of leverage over members of Congress. When Eisenhower took office, for instance, many members of Congress, even in the other party, faced a situation in which the president was more popular in their districts than they were. Legislators are nothing if not sensitive to factors that could hurt their reelection bids, so they fell over themselves to support the president’s initiatives, even ones that they might otherwise have resisted. Southern Democrats, for instance, had long resisted a federal highway system, due to their distrust of any federal intervention in their states. Popular presidents can offer appearances at signing ceremonies, host fundraisers, and do all sorts of things to reward cooperative legislators: Eisenhower’s highway program passed through committees controlled by Southern Democrats who could have stopped it. Unpopular presidents, on the other hand, quickly find that they have very little leverage. Big policy changes — tax reform, immigration reform, health care reform — often force legislators to choose between what their district wants them to do and what the president or Congress wants them to do. A popular president can help to ease the burden of an unpopular vote; an unpopular president has to accept what Congress wants to pass if he wants to sign any bills at all. Of course, there are some powers inherent to the presidency — control over the military, executive orders, and the like — and a clever president can make changes on the margins of the law with these powers. Such powers, however, are conditional: A president who doesn’t have the support of Congress can see his executive orders overturned, his cabinet members turn against him, his policies waste for lack of funding, and his press conferences ignored. A president can have real power to shape the future of the country, but that only comes with popularity. An unpopular president is more likely to find himself hemmed in by protests, like Johnson and Nixon in their later years — or like Carter, so ignored by Congress and his own administration that he spent his time approving the White House tennis schedules. If Trump wants to avoid their fate, he’ll need to change something dramatically. We’ll soon find out whether he can.

03 февраля, 18:54

Democratic Forum on President Trump's Unlawful #MuslimBan

House Democratic leaders and ranking Judiciary Committee members held a forum on Tuesday, February 2nd to discuss President Trump's unlawful #MuslimBan with distinguished experts and guests.

03 февраля, 04:03

Trump’s Enemies Within

The president has awakened the slumbering beast that felled presidents before him: the federal bureaucracy.

30 января, 13:06

Сталин против Трумэна: битва за Порт-Артур

Источник: Российская Газета Почему американцам не удалось разместить свои базы на границе Китая и СССР. Второго сентября 1945 года в Токийском заливе на борту американского линкора «Миссури» состоялась церемония подписания Акта о безоговорочной капитуляции милитаристской Японии в войне в Восточной Азии и на Тихом океане. Одновременно ставилась точка в продолжавшейся ровно шесть лет Второй мировой войне. Читать далее »Прочесть полный материал можно в моём блоге.

30 января, 13:00

Сталин против Трумэна: битва за Порт-Артур

Источник: Российская Газета Почему американцам не удалось разместить свои базы на границе Китая и СССР. Второго сентября 1945 года в Токийском заливе на борту американского линкора «Миссури» состоялась церемония подписания Акта о безоговорочной капитуляции милитаристской Японии в войне в Восточной Азии и на Тихом океане. Одновременно ставилась точка в продолжавшейся ровно шесть лет Второй мировой войне.

30 января, 12:00

What Trump's Reshuffling of the National Security Council Means

The president made significant changes to the council’s most influential committees, but the real concern is whether he will incorporate it into his decision-making process at all.

26 января, 21:10

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Newsflash: Obama Was A Historically Unpopular President, According To G…

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Newsflash: Obama Was A Historically Unpopular President, According To Gallup. That poll found that Obama’s overall average approval rating was a dismal 47.9%. Only three presidents scored worse than Obama since Gallup started doing these surveys in 1945: never-elected Gerald Ford (47.2%), one-termer Jimmy Carter (45.4%), and Harry Truman (45.4%). Obama even […]

19 июля 2015, 10:34

Немецкие скрепы для Америки

Оригинал взят у mysea в Немецкие скрепы для АмерикиВ первом ряду Вернер фон Браун и ученые, работавшие над созданием ракетКто все эти люди? А это немецкие ученые, особенно талантливые и незаменимые. Война кончилась, и Америка получила свои трофеи: "редкие умы", лучших ученых Германии. Они были собраны в Форт Блисс. Операция Скрепка" проводилась Объединённым агентством по целям разведки ( JIOA) В приказе Трумэна о начале операции "Скрепка" особо подчёркивалось, что исключена вербовка тех, кто «был членом нацистской партии и был более чем формальным участником её деятельности или активно поддерживал нацистский милитаризм». Согласно указанным ограничениям, большинство намеченных JIOA учёных должны были быть признаны негодными для вербовки, среди них ракетостроители Вернер фон Браун, Артур Рудольф и физик Губертус Штругхольд, каждый из которых был ранее классифицирован как «угроза безопасности силам союзников».Вернер фон Браун среди товарищейЧтобы обойти приказ президента Трумэна, а также Потсдамское и Ялтинское соглашения, JIOA разрабатывало фальшивые профессиональные и политические биографии для учёных. JIOA также изъяло из личных дел учёных членство в нацистской партии и вовлечённость в действия режима. «Отбелив» от нацизма, правительство США признало учёных благонадёжными для работы в США. Кодовое название проекта «Скрепка» появилось от скрепок, использованных для того, чтобы прикрепить новые политические личности «американских правительственных учёных» к их личным документам в JIOAВдобавок к ракетчикам и ядерщикам, союзники искали химиков, физиков и разработчиков морского вооружения. В 1947 году эта операция эвакуации охватила около 1800 техников и учёных, а также 3700 членов их семей.Фотография из файлов "Операция "Скрепка".

18 июля 2015, 16:02

Потсдамская конференция - 70 лет. (62 ФОТО)

Оригинал взят у aloban75 в Потсдамская конференция - 70 лет. (62 ФОТО)70 лет назад открылась Потсдамская конференция (Берлинская конференция)  - последняя из встреч лидеров стран антигитлеровской коалиции — СССР, США и Великобритании, проходившая с 17 июля по 2 августа 1945 года с целью определить дальнейшие шаги по послевоенному устройству Европы. Советскую делегацию возглавлял И. В. Сталин, американскую - Г. Трумэн, английскую - У.Черчилль, а с 28 июля сменивший его на посту премьер-министра К. Эттли.Этому событию я и  посвящаю данную фотоподборку.(Фотоальбом "Ялтинская конференция" можно посмотреть здесь)***Огромная благодарность товарищу yip03 за видеролик, котрый он сделал на основе моей фотоподборки.1. Встреча "Большой тройки". К. Эттли, Г. Трумэн, И. В. Сталин.2. Премьер-министр Великобритании У.Черчилль и его дочь Оливер, прибывшие на Берлинскую конференцию спускаются по трапу самолета.3. Премьер-министр Великобритании У.Черчилль проходит по аэродрому в день прибытия на Берлинскую конференцию.4. Президент США Г.С.Трумэн и генерал Д.Эйзенхауэр проходят по аэродрому в день прибытия на Берлинскую конференцию.5. Советская регулировщица на дороге в Потсдам, где проходила конференция глав трех держав.6. Контрольно-пропускной пункт союзников на дороге в Потсдам, где проходила конференция глав трех великих держав.7. Прибытие И.В. Сталина в резиденцию советской делегации в Бабельсберге.8. Комната приемов в резиденции И.В. Сталина в Бабельсберге.9. Комната отдыха в резиденции И.В. Сталина в Бабельсберге.10. Рабочий кабинет в резиденции советской делегации в Бабельсберге.11. Вид дворца Цецилиенхоф, в котором проходила Берлинская конференция.12. Вид дворца Цецилиенхоф, в котором проходила Берлинская конференция.13. Дворец Цецилиенхоф — место проведения Потсдамской конференции.14. Дворец Цецилиенгоф, в котором проходила Берлинская (Потсдамская) конференция.15. Проезд военных советников и представителей Объединенного штаба союзников (слева направо): первый ряд – Дж. Маршалл, А. Брук, маршал авиации Ч. Портал, генерал Г. Исмей; второй ряд – адмирал Э. Кинг (США), адмирал Э. Канингхэм (Великобритания).16. Проезд делегации США: госсекретарь Д. Бирнс, адмирал У. Леги и другие.17. Официальная фотография глав правительств трех держав: У. Черчилль, Г. Трумэн и И.В. Сталин.18. Перед началом Берлинской (Потсдамской) конференции 1945 г. У.Черчилль, Г.Трумэн и И.В.Сталин.19. Нарком иностранных дел СССР В.М.Молотов , В.Н.Павлов , посол СССР в США А.А.Громыко, Госсекретарь США Д.Ф. Бирнс (слева направо) и др. за круглым столом на заседании министров иностранных дел в дни работы Берлинской конференции.20. Министр иностранных дел Великобритании Э.Бевин (2-й слева) , Ф.Т.Гусев , первый заместитель наркома иностранных дел СССР А.Я.Вышинский, Нарком иностранных дел СССР В.М.Молотов В.Н.Павлов и др. за круглым столом на заседании министров иностранных дел в дни работы Берлинской конференции.21. На одном из первых заседаний Берлинской (Потсдамской) конференции. Присутствуют: И.В. Сталин, В.М. Молотов, А.Я. Вышинский, У. Черчилль, Г. Трумэн и другие.22. Общий вид зала заседания министров иностранных дел во время Берлинской конференции. Среди присутствующих: А.Я.Вышинский, В.М.Молотов, А.А.Громыко, А.Иден, Ф.Т.Гусев и др.23. Одно из заседаний во время Берлинской конференции. Среди присутствующих: Э.Бевин, А.Я.Вышинский, В.М.Молотов, И.В.Сталин, А.А.Громыко (слева направо), Ф.Я.Фалалеев, Н.Г.Кузнецов (2-й ряд справа) и др.24. Главнокомандующий группой советских войск в Германии и главноначальствующий СВАГ Г.К.Жуков в дни Берлинской конференции.25. Главнокомандующий группой советских войск в Германии и главноначальствующий СВАГ Г.К.Жуков, Нарком ВМФ СССР Н.Г.Кузнецов на заседании представителей Советской Армии и Флота – членов делегации СССР на Берлинской конференции.26. Генерал-лейтенант Н.В.Славин , Начальник штаба ВВС Советской Армии Ф.Я.Фалалеев, Главнокомандующий группой советских войск в Германии и главноначальствующий СВАГ Г.К.Жуков , Нарком ВМФ СССР Н.Г.Кузнецов , начальник Главного Военно-морского штаба СССР С.Г.Кучеров , начальник Генштаба Вооруженных сил СССР А.И.Антонов (слева направо) на заседании представителей Советской Армии и Флота членов делегации СССР на Берлинской конференции.27. Начальник Главного Военно-морского штаба СССР С.Г.Кучеров, генерал-лейтенант Н.В.Славин, Главнокомандующий группой советских войск в Германии и главноначальствующий СВАГ Г.К.Жуков, Нарком ВМФ СССР Н.Г.Кузнецов, начальник Генштаба Вооруженных Сил СССР А.И.Антонов , Начальник штаба ВВС Советской Армии Ф.Я.Фалалеев и др. в парке дворца Цецилиенхоф в дни Берлинской конференции.28. Встреча военных советников трех держав. В центре - начальник Генерального штаба РККА генерал А.И.Антонов, справа от него - нарком ВМФ адмирал Н.Г.Кузнецов, начальник Главного штаба ВМФ адмирал С.Г.Кучеров; слева от Антонова - начальник Главного штаба ВВС маршал авиации Ф.Я.Фалалеев и другие.29. Сталин И.В., Трумен Г., Черчилль У. в кулуарах зала заседания Потсдамской конференции.30. Министр иностранных дел Великобритании А.Иден в гостях у Наркома иностранных дел СССР В.М.Молотов в дни работы Берлинской конференции.31. Глава Советского правительства И.В.Сталин, В.Н.Павлов, Президент США Г.Трумэн, посол СССР в США А.А.Громыко (слева направо) у виллы Трумэна в дни Берлинской конференции.32. Министр иностранных дел Великобритании Э.Бевин (3-й слева) в гостях у Наркома иностранных дел СССР В.М.Молотова в дни Берлинской конференции. Среди присутствующих: А.Я.Вышинский, Ф.Т.Гусев, К.Эттли.33. Госсекретарь США Д.Ф.Бирнс (3-й слева), Президент США Г.Трумен (в центре), глава Советского правительства И.В.Сталин , Нарком иностранных дел В.М.Молотов, посол СССР в США А.А.Громыко и др. на балконе виллы Трумэна в дни Берлинской конференции.34. В гостях на вилле Г. Трумэна в Бабельсберге. Госсекретарь США Д. Бирнс, президент США Г. Трумэн, глава правительства СССР И.В. Сталин и нарком иностранных дел В.М. Молотов.35. Фотокорреспонденты СССР, США и Великобритании - участники фотосъемки Берлинской конференции.36. Премьер-министр Великобритании К. Эттли, Президент США Г.Трумэн, глава Советского правительства И.В.Сталин (сидят слева направо), адмирал В.Логи, Министр иностранных дел Великобритании Э.Бевин, Гос. секретарь США Д.Ф.Бирнс, Нарком иностранных дел СССР В.М.Молотов (стоят слева направо) в парке в дни работы Берлинской конференции.37. Группа экспертов-советников делегаций СССР, США и Великобритании у дворца Цецилиенхоф.38. Первый заместитель наркома иностранных дел СССР А.Я. Вышинский, Ф.Т.Гусев, министр иностранных дел Великобритании А.Иден, Нарком иностранных дел СССР В.М.Молотов, В.Н.Павлов, А. Керр (слева направо) в дни Берлинской конференции.39. Президент США Г.С.Трумэн, глава Советского правительства И.В.Сталин в группе участников Берлинской конференции. Среди присутствующих: В Логи, В.Н.Павлов.40. Берлинская (Потсдамская) конференция 1945 г. И.В. Сталин, Г. Трумэн, А.А. Громыко, Д. Бирнс и В.М. Молотов.41. Премьер-министр Великобритании У.Черчилль, Президент США Г.Трумэн, глава Советского правительства И.В.Сталин (слева направо) в парке в дни работы Берлинской конференции.42. Главы правительств трех держав: К.Эттли, Г.Трумэн и И.В.Сталин. Стоят: адмирал У.Леги, Э.Бевин, Д.Бирнс и В.М.Молотов.43. И.В. Сталин, Г. Трумэн, Д. Бернс и В.М. Молотов у крыльца резиденции президента США на Потсдамской конференции. На фото справа налево в первом ряду: Маршал Советского Союза, Председатель СНК СССР и Председатель ГКО СССР Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, президент США Гарри Трумэн (Harry S. Truman), государственный секретарь США (Secretary of state) Джеймс Бернс (James F. Byrnes, 1882—1972) и Нарком иностранных дел СССР Вячеслав Михайлович Молотов (1890—1986) у крыльца резиденции президента США на Потсдамской конференции. На фото во втором ряду справа между И.В. Сталиным и Г. Трумэном — американский адмирал Уильям Лихи (William Leahy), в центре между Г. Трумэном и Д. Бернсом — американский переводчик Чарльз Боулен (Charles Eustis «Chip» Bohlen, 1904–1974).44. Высшие офицеры СССР и США на встрече начальников Генеральных штабов во время Потсдамской конференции. Советские высшие офицеры (в белой форме слева направо): Начальник Генерального Штаба РККА — генерал армии Алексей Иннокентьевич Антонов, маршал авиации РККА Фёдор Яковлеви Фалалеев. Американские офицеры (сидят справа налево): генерал-лейтенант Генри Арнольд, начальник штаба армии США генерал Джордж Маршалл, начальник штаба морских операций адмирал Эрнст Кинг.45. Служащие и паровоз 7-й колонны НКПС (Народного комиссариата путей сообщения), доставившей советскую делегацию на Потсдамскую конференцию. Второй слева в нижнем ряду — кочегар паровоза латыш Янис Рудольфович Иршейнс.46. Вид на дворец Цецилинхоф (Cecilienhof) незадолго до открытия Потсдамской конференции.47. Делегации «Большой тройки» за столом переговоров на Потсдамской конференции.48. И.В. Сталин, Г. Трумэн и К. Эттли на Потсдамской конференции. На фото на переднем плане справа налево: председатель СНК СССР и председатель ГКО СССР, маршал Советского Союза Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, президент США Гарри Трумэн (Harry S. Truman) и премьер-министр Великобритании Клемент Эттли (Clement R. Attlee). На заднем плане справа - Нарком иностранных дел СССР Вячеслав Михайлович Молотов.49. Британский премьер-министр У. Черчилль обходит строй почетного караула союзных войск на берлинском аэродроме Гатов.50. Американские транспортные самолеты С-54 «Скаймастер» (Douglas C-54 Skymaster) на берлинском аэродроме Гатов во время Потсдамской конференции.51. Маршал Польши Михал Роля-Жимерский у дворца Цецилинхоф во время Потсдамской конференции.52. Советская делегация во время перерыва в заседании на Потсдамской конференции. В центре — маршал Советского Союза, Председатель СНК СССР и председатель ГКО СССР Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, слева от него (в полосатом костюме) - Нарком иностранных дел СССР Вячеслав Михайлович Молотов.53. Британские дипломаты, посол Великобритании в СССР Арчибальд Кларк-Керр (Archibald Clark-Kerr, в центре) и заместитель министра иностранных дел Великобритании Александр Кадоган (Alexander Cadogan, справа) в дворце Цецилинхоф (Cecilienhof) на Потсдамской конференции.54. Советские дипломаты, первый заместитель Наркома Иностранных дел СССР Андрей Януарьевич Вышинский (1883—1954, справа) и Посол СССР в США Андрей Андреевич Громыко (1909—1989, в центре) беседуют с государственным секретарем США (Secretary of state) Джеймсом Бернсом (James F. Byrnes, 1882—1972) на аэродроме во время Потсдамской конференции.55. Британские фельдмаршалы Гарольд Александр (Harold Alexander, слева) и Генри Уилсон (Henry Wilson, справа) на прогулке с военным министром Великобритании Генри Симпсоном (Henry Simpson, в центре) во время Потсдамской конференции.56. Высшие офицеры СССР и США на встрече начальников Генеральных штабов во время Потсдамской конференции. Советские высшие офицеры (в белой форме слева направо): Начальник Генерального Штаба РККА — генерал армии Алексей Иннокентьевич Антонов, маршал авиации РККА Фёдор Яковлевич Фалалеев. Американские офицеры (сидят справа налево): генерал-лейтенант Генри Арнольд, начальник штаба армии США генерал Джордж Маршалл, начальник штаба морских операций адмирал Эрнст Кинг.57. Советские офицеры смотрят на выходящего из дверей премьер-министра Великобритании Уинстона Черчилля во время Потсдамской конференции.58. Маршал Советского Союза, Председатель СНК СССР и Председатель ГКО СССР Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин на прогулке во дворце Цецилинхоф с президентом США Г. Трумэном во время Потсдамской конференции.59. Председатель СНК СССР и председатель ГКО СССР Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, президент США Гарри Трумэн (Harry S. Truman) и премьер-министр Великобритании Уинстон Черчилль (Winston Churchill) после ужина, данного Уинстоном Черчиллем.60. Председатель СНК СССР и председатель ГКО СССР Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, президент США Гарри Трумэн (Harry S. Truman) и премьер-министр Великобритании Уинстон Черчилль (Winston Churchill) после ужина, данного Уинстоном Черчиллем.61. Маршал Советского Союза, председатель СНК СССР и председатель ГКО СССР Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, президент США Гарри Трумэн и премьер-министр Великобритании Уинстон Черчилль в перерыве между заседаниями на потсдамской конференеции.62. Лидеры «Большой тройки» антигитлеровской коалиции на Потсдамской конференции:  премьер-министр Великобритании (с 28 июля) Клемент Эттли (Clement R. Attlee), президент США Гарри Трумэн (Harry S. Truman), председатель СНК СССР и председатель ГКО СССР Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин.Фотоальбом составлен на основе материалов сайтов:"Военный альбом" http://waralbum.ru/"Победа. 1941–1945" http://victory.rusarchives.ru/Все фото кликабельны.Все мои фотоальбомы здесь