During the 2016 presidential election, many younger voters repudiated Hillary Clinton because of her husband’s support for mass incarceration, banking deregulation and free-trade agreements that led many U.S. jobs to be shipped overseas. Warmonger: How Clinton’s Malign Foreign Policy Launched the Trajectory from Bush II to Biden, shows that Clinton’s foreign policy was just as bad as his domestic policy. Cultivating an image as a former anti-Vietnam War activist to win over the aging hippie set in his early years, as president, Clinton bombed six countries and, by the end of his first term, had committed U.S. troops to 25 separate military operations, compared to 17 in Ronald Reagan’s two terms. Clinton further expanded America’s covert empire of overseas surveillance outposts and spying and increased the budget for intelligence spending and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA offshoot which promoted regime change in foreign nations. The latter was not surprising because, according to CIA operative Cord Meyer Jr., Clinton had been recruited into the CIA while a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and as Governor of Arkansas in the 1980s he had allowed clandestine arms and drug flights to Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries (Contras) backed by the CIA to be taken from Mena Airport in the western part of the state. Rather than being a time of tranquility when the U.S. failed to pay attention to the gathering storm of terrorism, as New York Times columnist David Brooks frames it, the Clinton presidency saw rising tensions among the U.S., China and Russia because of Clinton’s malign foreign policies, and U.S. complicity in terrorist acts. In so many ways, Clinton’s presidency set the groundwork for the disasters that were to follow under Bush II, Obama, Trump, and Biden. It was Clinton—building off of Reagan—who first waged a War on Terror ridden with double standards, one that adopted terror tactics, including extraordinary rendition, bombing and the use of drones. It was Clinton who cried wolf about human rights abuses and the need to protect beleaguered peoples from genocide to justify military intervention in a post-Cold War age. And it was Clinton’s administration that pressed for regime change in Iraq and raised public alarm about the mythic WMDs—all while relying on fancy new military technologies and private military contractors to distance US shady military interventions from the public to limit dissent.

In Lonely Power, adapted from the Russian version, Lilia Shevtsova questions the veracity of clichTs about Russiauby both insiders and outsidersuand analyzes Russia's trajectory and how the West influences the country's modernization.

This book offers a historical analysis of the geopolitical and geoeconomic competition between the USA and Russia, which has recently heated up again due to the eastward expansion of NATO. The analysis departs from an exploration of the USA’s foreign policy and geopolitical ambitions by illustrating the influence of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex on the country’s political decision-making. The historical review covers a wide timespan, from the Second World War and the birth of NATO, to the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, to the rebellions that erupted in Eurasia, Northern Africa and the Middle East in the 2010’s, as well as the wars in the Ukraine and in Syria. By doing so, it reveals the influence of US neocons, the US intelligence services and the military complex on the Arab Spring, the Color Revolutions and the armed conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. Ultimately, the book depicts a new era of worldwide instability and disorder, dominated by violence and arbitrariness.

Lee Marsden presents one of the most original and comprehensive analyses of US democracy promotion in Russia and argues that in order to understand the failings of democracy assistance in Russia, it is necessary to understand the inter-relation of macro- and micro-level policy. The book introduces two new models of foreign policy analysis which increase understanding of both the formulation and implementation of foreign policy. Furthermore, it demonstrates how the promotion of democracy in Russia was substantially flawed due to implementation and the US foreign policy process.