From Atlantic Council's Emma Ashford and Matthew Borrows. Evidently their piece called:
Which calls for a pragmatic approach to Russia created a shit-tempest in the cup of American (lack of) foreign policy "establishment" and think-tankdom. Even silly points, made by Ashford and Borrows, such as these among few others, were too much for the so called US "hawks":
1. The US-Russian relationship has too long been predicated on the fantasy that Russia could be reshaped – whether through aid or coercion – into a Western, liberal democracy. However, there is little prospect of transformation or of ending human rights abuses. Policymakers must be clear-eyed about Russia: it is not a minor power that can be punished for its transgressions, but a powerful autocracy with the capacity to undermine US interests and act as a global spoiler.
2. US policy toward Russia has become punitive. Though sanctions are ostensibly framed as deterrence or coercion, existing frameworks offer no real way for sanctions to be removed even if Russian behavior improves. In some cases, the United States has painted itself into a corner, demanding unrealistic policy change (i.e., that Russia relinquish its hold on Crimea) in exchange for sanctions relief.
It is really funny to read about reaction of hawks who even blame, as Sputnik reports:
Describing the anger at the Washington DC-based pro-NATO institution, Politico posed the question as to how such an unorthodox article found its way to the think tank's website. One of the report's critics pinned the blame on Charles Koch, an American billionaire and philanthropist, who donated $4.5 million over five years to the Atlantic Council. Politico's interlocutor suggested that the article is a product reflecting Koch's influence, accusing the billionaire of "destroying good institutions" and having "pretty much the same views as the Russians."