mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
2016
Russia and the (Scoop) Jackson Democrats
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Beauceron

    Is it April 1st? Is this post an April Fool’s joke?

    I don’t see that many Americans feel Putin is a threat “to liberty and decency.” We have far more immediate problems to deal with. Perhaps in the salons of the elite globalists you see Putin drawing Republicans and Democrats together under the bright and hopeful banner of a Hillary presidency. From the streets where us squalid, ignorant rubes go about the meager business of our daily lives, it appears that a corporatist, well-connected elitist has skirted the law, connived and backstabbed her way to the top and, with an unbeatable alliance with the media, corporations and identity politics will be tapped queen of America. She can then, no doubt, commence with a re-reset of our relations with Russia. Perhaps then they won’t release her emails…

    • Andrew Allison

      SKIRTED the law?? How about: a 40-year history of flagrantly breaking it.

    • Nevis07

      Ahhh, the emails…. Democrats seem to have a difficult time keeping them in the right hands. Lois Lerner, Hillary, DNC Chair… Or perhaps on second thought it’s not the security of the emails but rather the content within them – hard to say which…

  • Anthony

    Reevaluation, revision, sober reflection, and contemplation of United States interests (Foreign/Global) may always aid the rediscovery and recognition of balance needed for Hamiltonian professionalism.

  • vepxistqaosani

    So the solution is to give the Presidency to the author of the “overcharge” button? Seems quite a reward for such embarrassing incompetence.

    • truthsojourner

      Spot on!

  • QET

    Before we can know what are “American interests” and how best to defend and advance them, we must be agreed on what it is to be “American” in the world of 2016. It is that foundation for everything else that has been returned for the time being to the Chaos from which all things become. This country is in the midst of a civil war, so far a non-shooting war but that may be changing, and has been for many years. It is that which has allowed Putin the free hand that he has so eagerly been playing. The various government types in both parties may be able to ignore that conflict because they share more as government types than they differ as Right or Left, but the conflict is fundamentally about what kind of government we ought to have, what it ought, and, more importantly, ought not, to do. A few Bush-era Republican government types deciding their bread is better buttered by Hillary won’t change anything.

  • rheddles

    This unity for which the post yearns is really the bi-partisan Blue Model establishment circling the wagons to protect themselves from the disruptive domestic forces which seek its displacement. Game on. When Trump wins, there will be an open field.

  • Pait

    On point!

  • WigWag

    American elites, nostalgic for the binary choices of the Cold War, are obsessed with Putin. For ordinary Americans, Putin is the least of their problems.

    Those foreign policy Mandarins desperately seeking Hillary are worried about exactly one thing; leaving their meaningless and boring jobs in academia and Think Tanks in order to return to government where they can continue their quest to ruin our country. Trump won’t hire them; Clinton will hire hordes of Democrats and for those Republicans who preen enough; they might be rewarded too.

    As for that liberal world order that Professor Mead loves so much, it used to work for all Americans but now it only works for the crony capitalists, their courtiers and their loyal paparazzi.

    If the liberal world order collapses because of Putun or anyone else, millions of Americans might end up better off.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Wow, how can WRM’s read on the world be so blind? Western Culture isn’t looking much at Putin and Russia, it is looking with alarm at immigrants and in particular Muslim immigrants. It’s the murderous Islamic culture and it’s incompatibility with Western Culture and its creation (Modern Civilization) that has Western Populations revolting against their stupid leadership. The power being lost by the Establishment is being picked up by Nationalists across the Western World, and the process is accelerating. Those steeped in Western Culture recoil in disgust with each new Terrorist attack, or targeting of police, as the “Rule of Law” comes under assault, and their leadership tries to spin it a inconsequential and scolding them that “Global Warming” is the real threat.

    • Andrew Allison

      It’s an elitist thing: the status quo must be preserved!

  • Andrew Allison

    Meanwhile, in the real world, CNN reports that Trump has overtaken Hillary in its poll.

  • PierrePendre

    What the West has learned is that if you yank Putin’s chain, he yanks yours back. Maybe it’s time to stop yanking and seek a sustainable modus vivendi with Putin that may make it easier to envisage an easier partner inheriting the Kremlin when he departs. The leniency of the sanctions imposed on Russia after the Crimean invasion and the destruction of the Malaysian airliner shows that Western policy makers are privately part of the way there despite the occasional fist shaking for public opinion like the projected Nato deployments in Poland and the Baltic republics which will be there purely for public relations purposes.

    Putin has made it clear he won’t allow Russia to be encircled by the West which is why he acted so decisively against EU and US manoeuverings in the Ukraine (where the two weren’t reading from the same hymn sheet; recall Miss Nuland’s memorable “f— the EU”). He underlines the basic point by poking around the Baltic states often enough to cause the West permanent nightmares. Europe is sufficiently economically dependent on Russian gas to tread gingerly. They’re in bad enough shape already.

    Western governments defend themselves against the consequences of their own incompetence and overreach by appealing to their electorates with allegations of Putin’s revanchist thuggery.

    The alternative would be to recognise that the central and east European settlement imposed on Russia when she was weak after the fall of the Soviet empire is obsolete and needs to be renegotiated. Finland managed to swing itself into a Western after years of being beholden to Moscow. The ideal would be to secure an equivalent freedom for the Baltic states and the Ukraine which took account of Russia’s security needs in the long term.

    Europeans aren’t terrified of Putin. They’re terrified of the incompetence of their political leaders and of the economic consequences of constant sanctions-back wrangling with Russia getting out of hand.

    • CaliforniaStark

      Have to admit you make many good points. If Europe was seriously concerned over the Russian threat, they would be increasing their defense spending and taking a more firm stance.

    • f1b0nacc1

      I am not sure that I trust Putin sufficiently to accept your view of him as simply someone who wants a status quo ante restored (forgive me if I am misrepresenting your thoughtful comments), but then again it matters little to me either way. I believe that it is time for the US to dissolve NATO (or simply leave it, which would have a very similar effect), and let the EUnicks attend to their own security issues. If the Finnish route appeals to them, so be it.

      • PierrePendre

        It’s sensible not to trust Putin. It’s also sensible not to underestimate his ability to compare a weak hand which is ultimately dependent on his control of EU energy supplies and nuclear weapons with the West’s ability to take pain in the unlikely event of any EU and US will to challenge him. The EU is weakened by economic dependence on Russia and liberal pacifism, the US by the fact that neither Obama nor Clinton will risk a confrontation that could escape control.

        My reading of Putin is that he wants himself and Russia to be taken seriously and thinks that although he is militarily weaker, he has the power of initiative in both provocation and escalation that can test Western resolve. He prods, Nato responds proportionately, he prods harder. Nato prods disproportionately, he prods disproportionately. Does the West keep on prodding or does it seek compromise?

        I say the West but I mean Nato and when I say Nato I mean the United States which is far and away more powerfully militarily than Russia, but we all know how the weaker present day geopolitical troublemakers hold Gulliver in check. I’m a European. Any conflict with Russia at any level will be fought initially in Europe. How far should Europeans trust Americans to pursue a war that could ultimately bring Putin’s ICBM’s down on US soil.

        Putin’s invasion of the Crimea and eastern Crimea was a calculated provocation and it was the West that blinked. That’s where we’re at and it depends on Washington where we go next.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Your analysis is sensible and thoughtful…I am not entirely sure that I share in your conclusions however. I am not confident, for instance, that the US has a strong enough interest in Europe that it should risk conflict at any level with Putin to defend a culture that clearly has no longer any interest in defending itself (please note, I am speaking generally about most Europeans, you quite obviously should not be tarred with the same brush) nor is there a risk of losing very much if we do not. Putin’s hand is extremely weak, but the European hand is weaker still. Just as France and Britain were incomparably superior in military, economic, and political might to Germany during the shameful period of appeasement, Hitler understood that they did not have the will or the courage to oppose him. While Putin is no Hitler (I don’t care for the man, but say what you want he is no more evil than the average autocrat, and unlike our current leadership, he seems to genuinely love his country), I suspect he understands the dynamic just as Hitler did, so his weak hand is not a serious impediment.

          The best thing that the US can do for itself (and in many ways for Europe as well) is to cut them loose (bilateral agreements with states that wish to remain associated with us are entirely reasonable if they accept their part of the burden) and let their understanding of the circumstances that they find themselves in clarify. This is better for the US, and better for the Europeans as it gives them a choice and makes the consequences of each option clear to them. If there are enough in Europe with your understanding (sadly, I doubt it), the results will be quite good. If not…perhaps it is better that it happens before it comes to war.

  • Nevis07

    Michael Bloomberg must be kicking himself for not deciding to run. He could have taken the Dem or Independent ticket with ease given everything Hillary’s campaign has put voters through.

  • GS

    The trouble with this WRM analysis is that if [by some magic wand operation] you give hillary a fluency in russian, then you would not be able to tell her from a soviet/putinoid nomenklaturust even under an electron microscope. [and as I was born and grew up there, I speak of that type of subhumans from experience]. If you do not like putin and his putinoids, then consider that Donald Trump is at least a civilizational American.

  • Kev

    Neoconservatism is a Jewish political movement, primarily concerned with foreign policy and protecting Israel. Neocons are known to be liberal on most domestic issues (particularly immigration) – Democratic party is their natural home. These people shouldn’t be confused with traditional defence hawks like Robert Gates, who tend to be patriotic gentile Republicans, nostalgic for the period of Cold War.

    For understandable reasons Jews see any kind gentile nationalism as a threat to their community, hence their opposition to Trump should not come as a surpise. And it wouldn’t matter in November since Jews don’t vote for Republicans anyway.

  • MikePM

    If we had rational thinking leadership, we would be looking for areas of common ground with Putin instead of trying to restart the Cold War. Unlike our current “leaders”, he seems to understand the threat of radical Islam and the importance of the secular leaders like Assad maintaining control, distasteful though they may be.

    Our insane leaders like Obama and Hillary on the other hand appear to be hellbent on making the world safe for ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Qaeda. Why this is and what in the world they could possibly be thinking, only God knows.

  • Stephen

    Right. and after having angered US foreign policy right into the ground between realism and democracy promotion, I’m sure those flocking to Hillary like the Kagans and Scowcrofts, will be welcomed with open arms to replace the current crew running the foreign policy show: Whistling past the graveyard.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service