Follow us on social

Cohen-photo-3_07

Stephen Cohen's legacy lives on in group fostering US-Russia relations

The late professor launched the first incarnation in 1974. A year after his death, his wife and colleagues are pressing forward under new name.

Analysis | Europe

Last month, The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft co-hosted a panel discussion with the American Committee for US-Russia Accord on the outcomes and implications of the Biden-Putin summit meeting in Geneva.

ACURA is not new — but our mission has been updated to reflect current realities in the U.S.-Russia relationship. So we’d like to take this opportunity to say a few words about our group: who we are, and what we hope to achieve.

But first, perhaps, some history is in order.

The original Committee for East-West Accord was founded in 1974 to act as a counterweight to the then-growing backlash in Washington to the Nixon administration’s policy of detente. At the time, a well funded and well connected cohort of neoconservatives had formed the Committee on the Present Danger which sought to drum up support for ever higher defense budgets by employing the overheated rhetoric of cold war alarmism. The first Committee for East-West Accord boasted such luminaries as the diplomat George F. Kennan; former Under Secretary of State George Ball; Pepsico Chairman Donald Kendall; Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith;Notre Dame University president Fr. Theodore Hesburgh; and Princeton University Russian scholar [and my late husband] Stephen F. Cohen.

It was Steve who was the guiding force behind the Committee’s re-emergence in 2015, this time as the American Committee for East-West Accord. As Steve noted at the time, “The old Committee, formed mainly by corporate CEOs, was well funded, had offices in Washington D.C., and had supporters in many places — in the media, in Congress, in the two political parties, in the State Department, etc. We have none of these advantages now. Our struggle is therefore much more difficult, but therefore also more important.”

It was also Steve who, far earlier than most, saw the danger of the new cold war that was forming in the mid 2000s and which reached its apex in the months and years immediately following the 2014 crisis in Ukraine. Steve observed with dismay that many journalists, scholars and foreign policy practitioners acted as though the risks of a prolonged East-West confrontation were negligible. In his view, this was the height of reckless irresponsibility. He knew, as we know now, that the inherent risks of a confrontation between the U.S. and Russia, each armed with roughly 1350 strategic nuclear warheads, and with our militaries nose to nose across east-central Europe, the Black Sea, and Syria, were enormous. The role of the West in fomenting rebellion against a democratically elected government in Kiev greatly exacerbated the risks of confrontation.

Steve’s decision to re-establish the committee at the high point of what may fairly be characterized as a neo-McCarthyite stance toward Russia, was also very much in keeping with his character. In a Chronicle of Higher Education profile, the distinguished scholar Ronald Suny observed that Steve “tries to fight all windmills at once,” adding that he thought Steve “rather courageous” for covering “for more timid colleagues.”

Inspired by his example, we relaunched as the American Committee for US-Russia Accord (ACURA) in January of this year, with the goal of the goal of introducing civility and moderation to the increasingly toxic debate over U.S. policy toward Russia, and toward Russia itself, while emphasizing the legitimate interests of both the United States and Russia, and urging ethical fairness in the means of serving these interests.

Ours is a collaborative effort between distinguished scholars, businessmen, artists, activists and diplomats, who are searching for new ways to collaborate with people from across a wide spectrum on holding a real dialogue over the current problems bedeviling the U.S.-Russian relationship.

The Committee’s current Board includes a wide range of distinguished citizens including former senator and presidential candidate Bill Bradley; Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the USSR, Jack Matlock; former Procter and Gamble CEO, John Pepper; the scholar Nicolai N. Petro; citizen diplomats Sharon Tennison and Cynthia Lazaroff; former UN ambassador Donald McHenry; and Quincy’s own Anatol Lieven.

Our website includes original and curated material for those who seek different, alternative approaches. As we say in our Mission statement which one can access at usrussiaaccord.org, “The primary mission of ACURA is to promote diplomacy, dialogue and cooperation with Russia. Our goal is to stimulate public awareness regarding the dangers of a new Cold War by encouraging open, civilized, informed debate among Americans with different, even opposing, positions, perspectives, and proposals.” 

 ACURA believes the kind of world we leave to future generations hinges in large part on how we navigate the perilous shoals of the US-Russia relationship. With the help of grassroots activists and thoughtful, innovative centers of action, policy and scholarship like Quincy, we hope to affect much needed change and begin a new era of dialogue and diplomacy between the world’s nuclear superpowers.


The late professor Stephen Cohen. (courtesy of Katrina vanden Heuvel)
Analysis | Europe
Russia train derailment
Top photo credit: Specialists of emergency services work at the scene, after a road bridge collapsed onto railway tracks due to an explosion in the Bryansk region, Russia, June 1, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What the giddy reaction to Ukraine's surprise attacks says about us

Europe

A little over forty years ago, while preparing for a weekly radio address, President Ronald Reagan famously cracked wise about the possibility of attacking the Soviet Union. “I have signed legislation that outlaws Russia forever,” he said. “We begin bombing in five minutes.”

Reagan had not realized that the studio microphone was recording his joke and that technical personnel preparing for the broadcast in stations across the country were already listening. His facetious remarks were leaked. The public reaction was immediate, strong, and negative. Democratic candidate Walter Mondale admonished his election opponent for ill-considered humor, and Reagan’s polling numbers took a temporary hit.

keep readingShow less
Is Trump's ambassador to Israel going off-script?
Top photo credit: U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee visits the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest prayer site, in Jerusalem's Old City, April 18, 2025. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

Is Trump's ambassador to Israel going off-script?

Washington Politics

As the Trump administration continues to try to broker a nuclear deal with Iran, Israel’s president Benjamin Netanyahu has not been a willing partner in those efforts.

The two spoke Monday evening, but Israel’s government has threatened strikes on Iran that could upend a deal. When Trump bypassed Israel on his Middle East trip last month, many saw it as a snub to Netanyahu.

keep readingShow less
Boeing
Top image credit: EVERETT (WA), USA – JANUARY 30 2015: Unidentified Boeing employees continue work building its latest Boeing 777 jets at its Everett factory (First Class Photography / Shutterstock.com)

A nuclear deal with Iran could generate billions for US economy

Middle East

As the U.S. and Iran engage in fraught rounds of nuclear talks, deep distrust, past failures, and mounting pressure from opponents continue to hinder progress. Washington has reverted to its old zero-enrichment stance, a policy that, in 2010, led Iran to increase uranium enrichment from under 5% to 20%. Tehran remains equally entrenched, insisting, “No enrichment, no deal, No nuclear weapons, we have a deal.”

In Washington, the instinct is to tighten the screws on Tehran, make military threats credible, and explore strike options to force capitulation. Yet history shows that these coercive tactics often fail. Sanctions have not secured compliance and have proven costly to U.S. interests. Military strikes are unlikely to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities; instead, they risk convincing Tehran to pursue the development of nuclear weapons.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.