Home Care In Clinton, IN

Washington, D.C., January 25, 2024 - Declassified highest-level records from the Moscow summit 30 years ago this month detail U.S. President Bill Clinton’s strong personal support for Russian President Boris Yeltsin, their close cooperation on security issues, and deep concern about Yeltsin backtracking on economic reforms newly understood by the Clinton team as too “harsh” on the Russian people.

The documents include verbatim transcripts of Clinton’s two “one-on-one” discussions with Yeltsin, their trilateral discussion with Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk about removal of nuclear weapons from Ukraine, the detailed report from the U.S. Embassy Moscow on the dinner thrown by Yeltsin at his official dacha for Clinton, and the transcript of the expanded bilateral discussion between Clinton and Yeltsin on security issues.

The e-book includes an overview briefing memo for the President from national security adviser Anthony Lake, which describes Yeltsin as “arguably your most important foreign counterpart,” and the economic briefing memo to Clinton that admits that market reforms urged by the U.S. and implemented by Yeltsin failed to provide a social safety net for Russians, who reacted by voting against the reformers in the December 1993 parliamentary elections.

One highlight among the documents from January 1994 is the 12-page “eyes only” memo from Strobe Talbott to Secretary of State Warren Christopher, with Christopher’s extensive handwritten comments in the margins, including the admission that “set speeches” were “a real weakness” of his. Just a few days after being nominated to be Christopher’s deputy, a major promotion after less than one year as ambassador for the former Soviet republics, Talbott provides his boss with an almost anthropological account of Washington’s foreign policy village, with candid commentary on Russia and NATO policies (and their critics), on State Department personnel issues, and on internal tensions in the Clinton team. These included Lake’s “runs” at “knocking me out of Presidential events on Russia,” such as the upcoming Moscow one-on-ones.[1]

The new documents come from two major sources: a successful National Security Archive lawsuit against the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act and multiple declassification review requests filed at the Clinton Presidential Library. These records are highlights from the forthcoming 2,500-document declassified reference collection: U.S.-Russian Relations from the End of the Soviet Union to the Rise of Vladimir Putin, the next installment in the award-winning Digital National Security Archive series published by ProQuest.

The documents show the American team working hard to include multiple non-Yeltsin-centered events in the summit schedule. The U.S. ambassador, Thomas Pickering, hosted a reception at Spaso House for Clinton to meet oppositionists, excluding only Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the extremist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, the top vote-getter in the December legislative election. Clinton also addressed an audience of young Russians at the Ostankino television complex and met with the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, who had attempted to mediate the constitutional crisis between Yeltsin and the Supreme Soviet the previous year.[2]

Two of the documents, the Clinton-Kravchuk memcon at Kyiv’s Borispol Airport and the trilateral memcon with Clinton, Yeltsin and Kravchuk in Moscow, mark a key moment in the history of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Traumatized by the 1986 Chernobyl explosion, the Ukrainian independence movement had pushed to remove Soviet nuclear weapons from Ukraine, and the newly independent state signed the Lisbon Protocol in May 1992 to become a non-nuclear party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, which also inherited Soviet nukes). Ukraine had no capacity to service and maintain the nuclear warheads—which were reaching the end of their service lives and were thus mini-Chernobyls waiting to happen—and couldn’t afford to build a nuclear reprocessing cycle (the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences’ estimate was $3 billion), especially with the international sanctions that would have ensued.[3]

In order to remove the nukes, Ukraine needed compensation and security assurances; at the same time, some voices in the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, argued for keeping the nukes. The Moscow summit documents, including the Trilateral Statement signed by the three leaders, show the first steps towards the ultimate deal. The U.S. put up $60 million to prime the pump; the Russians provided fuel assemblies blended down from warhead fissile material to fuel Ukrainian nuclear power plants; and the Ukrainians started shipping warheads to the Russians for reprocessing. Ukraine also received debt forgiveness for hundreds of millions of dollars in already supplied Russian oil and gas and security assurances that lasted until 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, in 2022, popularized the notion that Ukraine should have kept its nukes, but the record shows that maintaining a nuclear arsenal wasn’t really an option for the country in 1994.[4]

The biggest worry among the Clinton team at the Moscow summit was not so much the Ukraine trilateral but the fate of economic and democratic reforms in Russia after the shock of the December elections. During the opening dinner at Yeltsin’s dacha on January 13, the Russian president referred to the leading reformer, former prime minister Yegor Gaidar, as the leader of the government party in the Duma, “clearly impl[ying] that Gaidar would be out of the government and work only in the Duma.” The next day, during the formal Kremlin dinner, Clinton’s aides heard from Gaidar that, actually, he was being fired, and others of his team were also on their way out. At the insistence of Treasury undersecretary Larry Summers, Clinton sought a final one-on-one with Yeltsin on January 15 to warn that “President Clinton’s credibility was connected to President Yeltsin’s indication that he would continue the reforms, which were linked to a specific team of people.” But, of course, that was for Yeltsin to decide.[5]

Blink once and you might think you’re in Manhattan’s Flatiron District—blink twice and you’ll realize it’s One Clinton, Marvel’s new building in Brooklyn Heights. Situated at the intersection of brownstones and business deals is a 38-story residential complex, sitting on top of a public library.

The ground-floor of One Clinton hosts the Cadman Plaza branch of the Brooklyn Public Library (BPL). Looking out over Cadman Plaza Park, the renovation of the library keeps its limestone facade with a new modern finish. Its interior combines the programs of a library, a community center, and a STEM Lab and meeting rooms all in one. An upper mezzanine offers a cozy gaming area, and the lower level is set host local children’s events and crafting.

One Clinton’s most noticeable feature is its striking minimalist limestone facade and regimented mutli-story glazing at street level. The building’s exterior places an emphasis on pedestrian engagement, but the limestone material choice is a reference —and tribute to—the previous BPL’s facade, erected in 1962. Those limestone slabs were etched with bas-reliefs of art deco statues, not unlike those at the Main Branch library at Grand Army Plaza.

Due to the building’s siting in a historic district, the development of the project was originally met with dismay from local residents and governing boards due to the role played by the library. But now, upon completion, Lissa So, partner at Marvel, believes in the clarity the building can bring to the environment. “One Clinton offers a welcoming and timeless solution to downtown Brooklyn and Brooklyn Heights,” said So. “Collaborating with our client Hudson Companies, we are confident that it will serve as an active source of engagement for the community now and in years to come.”

One Clinton was first conceived back in 2018 and was finally able to open its doors in 2023. Many of these doors lead to the 134 residential units One Clinton has to offer. The project is filled with amenities that cater to the contemporary Brooklyn Heights resident: An amenity terrace is a real highlight of the building, boasting gas grills, sundecks, and 3,500 square feet of outdoor space for neighborly bonding. The building also accommodates residents with a 24-hour lobby and accessibility to a 2,000-square-foot fitness center. But the overall design was meant to invoke the myriad architectural aspects of the area—blending the rhythm found in the surrounding residential brownstones with the dynamics of the nearby downtown onto the unique triangular lot straddling quiet Clinton Street and busy Cadman Plaza West.

Libraries in New York City are a critical and cultural counterpart with historic and meaningful value. In 2023 Mayor Eric Adams proposed a budget cut that would slash the New York Public Library’s budget and would not be able to keep doors open on Sundays. Due to much public outcry, a reversal was made with the help of an increase in sign ups for library social programs. One Clinton is Marvel’s accidental solution to a mistreatment of one of our most important institutions.

Washington, D.C., June 5, 2023 – Declassified highest-level records from the first six months of the Clinton administration’s relations with the Russian Federation in 1993 reveal a remarkable array of cooperative diplomatic initiatives and Bill Clinton’s direct personal support for Boris Yeltsin in the latter’s growing conflict with his own elected parliament over radical economic reforms known as “shock therapy.”

The documents include verbatim transcripts of the first two face-to-face presidential meetings, in Vancouver, Canada, in April 1993, and at the G-7 meeting in Tokyo in July 1993, together with records of telephone conversations between the two leaders in February, April and June. The April conversation came just after the Russian leader prevailed in a snap referendum endorsing his leadership and his call for new parliamentary elections. Clinton called to tell the Russian leader, “I want you to know that we’re in this with you for the long haul.” (Document 8)

The documents also include key policy memos prepared for Clinton ahead of the Vancouver summit meeting by national security adviser Tony Lake, Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. The latter argued for a “real partnership between our two defense establishments at all levels,” including “intense personal engagement” and even “bonding.” If the U.S. failed, Aspin wrote, the Russian military “will go over to the other side in the ongoing Russian revolution.” (Document 5)

The new documents come from two major sources: a successful National Security Archive lawsuit against the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and multiple declassification review requests to the Clinton Presidential Library. These records are early highlights from the forthcoming document collection: US-Russian Relations from the End of the Soviet Union to the Rise of Vladimir Putin, the latest installment in the award-winning Digital National Security Archive series published by ProQuest.

These first six months of the Clinton administration’s relations with Russia set the tone for what followed throughout the 1990s: Clinton’s personal engagement with and support for Yeltsin despite the latter’s often erratic behavior; continued pressure from the U.S. for rapid marketization and privatization in Russia despite two economic collapses there and enormous capital flight; and Russian cooperation on key foreign policy issues important to the U.S. despite occasional backsliding (for example, Russian support for the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia).

The documents show Clinton working hard to treat Yeltsin as an equal, even though Russia was a supplicant for economic aid as its economy shrank by almost half in the 1990s. For example, in a Clinton-Yeltsin phone call on June 28, 1993, Yeltsin said he was worried about the reception in Tokyo. He didn’t want to repeat the infamous experience of Mikhail Gorbachev, who asked for financial support at the G-7 meeting in the summer of 1991—after the Soviets had agreed to the unification of Germany in NATO and to the first Gulf War—but “came away with nothing.” Clinton assured him, “That won’t happen.” (Document 9)

Interestingly, at the Tokyo meeting, Yeltsin mentioned the historic grievance between Russia and Japan over the “territories,” meaning the Kurile Islands (captured by Japan from Russia in 1905 and then seized by Stalin at the end of World War II). But Japanese hesitation about aid to Russia likely also derived from the vast difference between the shock therapy approach taken by Yeltsin under pressure from the International Monetary Fund and from the U.S., versus Japan’s own economic miracle after World War II, with investments administratively planned and directed, with significant protectionism (not open markets), and based on social solidarity (not liberation of elites).[1]

Together, these documents provide historical context to the statement last week in Helsinki by Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his speech about Russia's strategic failure in Ukraine: “At the peaceful end of the Cold War, we shared the hope that Russia would emerge to a brighter future, free and open, fully integrated with the world. For more than 30 years, we worked to pursue stable and cooperative relations with Moscow, because we believed that a peaceful, secure, and prosperous Russia is in America’s interests—indeed, in the interests of the world. We still believe that today.”

It’s been the longest relationship of my life as a voter, and as a writer on culture and politics. But after last week, and the revelation that she failed to take her campaign manager’s advice and fire an aide accused of sexual harassment in 2008, Hillary Clinton and I are done. And to be honest, it’s probably overdue.

Rooting for Clinton has never been purely about her, of course. Breaking that “highest, hardest glass ceiling” would have been a rebuke to the idea that taking time to support her husband’s career is necessarily the end of a woman’s dreams and ambitions. Seeing Clinton, the leading hate figure of the past three decades of conservative politics, earn a respected role in public life often felt like evidence that women don’t need to let themselves be defined by their most venomous public detractors. And when I defended Clinton from the charges that she should have done something more to prevent her husband’s transgressions, I did so out of a belief that women have the right to complicated reactions in private as long as they behave with integrity in public.

I am absolutely convinced that wives shouldn’t be assigned to govern their husbands’ behavior. That’s a kind of buck-passing that excuses their spouses from having functional consciences and limited self-control. And marriage is a special kind of relationship, one where we make unusual commitments to love and support the other person that we might not extend to others. That devotion inevitably interferes with objectivity. If Hillary Clinton, or any other woman, is privately angry at or blinkered about another woman who comes forward to say that she had an affair with Bill Clinton, or that Bill Clinton sexually harassed her, I’m willing to allow Hillary Clinton that private fallibility and cruelty, that momentary lack of solidarity. We should all hope we find such forgiveness in moments when we’re faced with astonishing personal pain and respond in ways that demonstrate the limits of our strength.

But if I’m being honest with myself, I also trusted that Clinton’s marriage was a separate zone for her. I believed that when confronted with allegations of sexual misconduct in her capacity as a senator, secretary of state or candidate for president that she would handle those accusations decisively and in a way that made clear that she was on the side of other women. After all, she spoke eloquently about guaranteeing women equal access to the workplace and keeping us free from violence in her landmark speech in Beijing in 1995, and connected the subjugation of women and the instability of nations during her tenure as secretary of state. I’ve long followed the career of one sexual assault survivor who went to work on Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, and I took her presence there as a vote of confidence that this was a workplace where she felt comfortable.

Maggie Haberman and Amy Chozick’s reporting for the New York Times about how Clinton handled sexual harassment allegations against Burns Strider, her faith adviser, during her 2008 presidential campaign makes it impossible for me to maintain that trust.

To be clear: Clinton is not responsible for Strider’s conduct. He alone is the person who is alleged to have rubbed his office-mate’s shoulders, kissed her forehead and “sent her a string of suggestive emails.” Clinton is also not responsible for the subsequent alleged sexual misconduct that got Strider fired from an outside group supporting Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

But Clinton is responsible for ignoring recommendations from Jess O’Connell, her campaign’s national director of operations and the person tapped to investigate the 2008 allegations against Strider, that Strider be fired from the campaign. She made the choice to ignore the advice of her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, who took that recommendation to Clinton. Clinton is the person who made the call to withhold some of Strider’s pay and to assign him to go to counseling sessions he never attended. And it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether, in taking these actions rather than terminating him from the campaign, Clinton made it easier for Strider to find another job where he was accused of sexually harassing another young woman.

I respect Clinton’s personal religious faith and the depth of her belief in forgiveness. What I can’t accept is the idea that forgiving Strider means minimizing the consequences he faced for his behavior, especially when doing so put him in a position to offend again. Other women bore the cost when Clinton tried to focus on redeeming a man who worked for her rather than protecting the woman who did.

It’s true that during her decades in public life, Clinton has been unfairly saddled with the weight of a lot of terrible decision-making by men. But it does not balance the scales to say that Clinton shouldn’t be held accountable for the choices she made and the advice she shrugged off as the chief executive of her own presidential campaign. Trying to protect her even from the consequences of her own actions is condescension, not fairness.

Harvey Weinstein is Hillary Clinton’s fault, we have learned from many sources. So is eczema and the Civil War and the fact that your child refuses to learn to tie shoelaces and sticks to Velcro shoes. The hairs and stuff that get caught in the Velcro are also Hillary Clinton’s fault, and she could have passed legislation against them if she cared instead of being uncaring. It is also the soon-to-be-divorced Mrs. Weinstein’s fault that her husband is an alleged rapist, except that it is Hillary Clinton’s fault, except that it is the fault of the victims for choosing to be small, young female victims looking for work at the outset of their cinematic careers instead of being Matt Damon, a choice open to us all.

Why are you not Matt Damon yourself? This is your fault. Perhaps you could also choose to be Jason Bourne, which would guarantee your safety every time? Take it from me: the Bourne option. After all I have read in Wikipedia that Bourne these days is “isolating himself from the world and making a living by taking part in savage, bareknuckle fighting bouts,” which is what everyone should have done if they saw Harvey Weinstein rising like a great scary potato over the horizon. It appears that Clinton was in Washington pushing to get the Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorized while the reports broke about Weinstein’s alleged creepitude, but it’s her fault if she can’t multitask. Likewise it is the fault of young actresses for not speaking just because they were threatened by a terrifying bully, and it’s their fault that if they spoke up no one would have believed them, and of course you can now blame them for what happened, because in Shakespeare’s day there were no actresses, but these women insisted on entering the field, where there were men, and even entering the production facility, where there was this man.

Remember that every time a man commits a violent act it only takes one or two steps to figure out how it’s a woman’s fault, and that these dance steps are widely known and practiced and quite a bit of fun. There are things men do that are the fault of women who are too sexy, and other things men do that are the fault of women who are not sexy enough, but women only come in those two flavors: not enough, too much, and it is the fate of heterosexual men to endure this affliction. Wives are responsible for their husbands, especially if their husbands are supremely powerful and terrifying figures leading double lives and accountable to no one. But women are now also in the workforce, where they have so many opportunities to be responsible for other men as well.

It is Anita Hill’s fault that Clarence Thomas is a creep, and it’s also her fault that he’s on the Supreme Court, and it’s her fault she didn’t speak up about his sexual harassment, and also her fault that she did speak up about it, ruffling important waters when men were trying to fly-fish them, as women do when men try. To fly-fish that is, and the trout that are not biting are the fault of the woman who did not smile at you on the bus this morning, though it is a gospel truth that lady strangers owe you smiles. If we study up, it may be possible to figure out which parts of everything are Anita Hill’s fault. Mary Todd Lincoln: perhaps her faults linger on, and it would be fun to blame her for something, and why did Michelle Obama choose to exercise her right to bare arms? Perhaps that makes her responsible for some mass shootings, which tend to be carried out by men, but not their fault. Someone made them do it, and every time a man does something awful we can all pause for a moment of respectful silence while we figure out who to blame.

It is possible, as I study the situation, that I personally am responsible for the sack of Rome and for Attila the Hun and the Black Death (I wore a lot of black back in the day, still do), but more research is needed. It may also be that my friends Conchita and Amy are responsible for ebola and the holes in the socks of our great men that so afflict their heels when they would rather be thinking of how to serve our fatherland. If I were a man perhaps I would understand why a man just explained to me that Trump is Clinton’s fault and not be baffled about why no one ever said in my hearing that Bush II was Al Gore’s and then John Kerry’s fault or Ronald Reagan was Jimmy Carter’s fault for that matter.

Evidently it is the fault of Hillary Clinton that there is Donald Trump, and it was wrong of her to put Harvey Weinstein’s donation to work on to her attempt to beat Trump and protect reproductive rights and stuff, instead of donating the money to a cause that benefited women, and it’s her fault that a lot of Americans wanted to vote for, as Laurie Penny put it, the Hog-Emperor of Rape Culture who hunted her onstage in the second debate like Sherman going after Atlanta, only with snorting. After all the Civil War was her fault.

I have spoken. Which I do. Which is one of my faults; I am crafting an apology for that out of dynamite and backhoes which will be ready presently.