(Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A Stabbing In Moscow
The Case for Sanctioning Putin’s Propagandists

A sordid attack on a liberal radio station shows the pernicious effects of Russia’s propaganda—and should be a wake-up call for those who are serious about countering the threat.

Published on: October 31, 2017
Karina Orlova is staff writer for The American Interest and Washington correspondent for Echo of Moscow radio.
show comments
  • Angel Martin

    “Vladimir Putin spoke up about the assault yesterday, describing it as the unfortunate but aberrant act of a madman. In truth, though, the attack did not come out of the blue. It is the direct consequence of an environment that Putin has been nurturing for years: a climate of hatred, bigotry, and suspicion that has been consistently fostered by the Kremlin ”

    To bad liberals can’t make the same connection between islam, and moslem terrorist attacks.

  • KremlinKryptonite

    The problem is not with sanctioning a regime or its mouthpieces, but rather the problem is with consistency. I just came back to Seoul from mainland china for the, oh i don’t know, 15th time? Maybe this was 16. Without question or exception there is more censorship in china than in Russia. Period. Been there too.

    This very platform, Disqus, is banned. Thousands and thousands of sites, books, films banned. However, the unelected regime in Beijing DOES have its own accounts. CCTV and New China TV, Global Times, and so on, are all Communist Party propaganda arms, and they are present on YouTube and Twitter, etc. At first you want to laugh because it’s so silly to ban the Chinese from visiting sites like YT which is used by the Communist Party to pump its own propaganda, and then you realize how sad it is. That’s how scared the regime is.

    • D4x

      Consistency is indeed a question in the USA, where most media forgets to report, or analyze, actual international news. On Oct 27-28, Turkey tried to redraw their border with Syria until Putin called Erdogan at midnight Oct. 29. I read the readout in SpanishSputnik, https://mundo.sputniknews.com/politica/201710291073557028-moscu-ankara-cooperacion-bilateral/ Voila! Turkey stopped bombing the Kurds in Afrin, Syria.

      Now going straight to the source http://en.kremlin.ru/ and http://www.mid.ru/en/main_en to follow the aftermath of the Astana Process meeting that just ended, because, only not-USA sources are reporting on that. Putin is inviting Syria’s Kurds to the Sochi congress on Nov. 18, to work on a political settlement of the civil war. The USA was at Astana, and seems to have tacitly agreed to let Putin manage Turkey, and a process the UN can work with; while USA tries to manage the debacle in Iraq.

      U.S. Sanctions on Russians are increasingly damaging America the most, in so many ways that will never be mentioned at the neoTAI. Hope to see you again, KK.

      My favorite read today: https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/30/thinking-clearly-about-russia/
      “…both the American Left and neoconservative Right would see things more clearly if they stopped demonizing Putin and displaying such unrelieved hostility to the Russian nation and people. The beginning of wisdom is to recognize that Russia is infinitely freer today than it ever was under Soviet rule. One is not obliged to honor its present regime, but it would help to stop seeing Russia as the hereditary enemy of the human race.”

      Meanwhile, Iraq’s Abadi learned some lessons from Erdogan on how to manage the press:

      Questions to Heather Nauert, U.S. State Department Spokesperson at Department Press Briefing – October 31, 2017:

      Q: “The Iraqi Government seems to have a campaign against journalists. A Kurdistan TV reporter, Arkan Sharif, was killed yesterday in Kirkuk apparently by hostile Shaabi. Today, the prime minister said Kurdish channels were guilty of war crimes just by reporting on the fighting, and Kurdistan 24 and other Kurdish channels have been banned in areas of Iraq that are controlled by Baghdad. And an Arab journalist – so it’s not just Kurds – Samir Obeid, who was critical of Abadi, was arrested. What’s your comment on all that?

      MS NAUERT: Yeah. I have not heard of all of that, Laurie. I’m aware of the murder that took place of the journalist in Kirkuk. We’ve seen that story. Some of this information is just coming in to us, so I can’t confirm all of these stories that you’re mentioning. We are certainly aware of media reports based in the – based on the government having issues with the central government of Iraq. And media issues overall – I mean, our position has not changed. We support freedom of the press. We believe that more voices, not fewer voices, is good for democracy, is good for people of various countries. We would mourn the arrest – I mean, excuse me. We would mourn the death of any journalist covering this, trying to bring additional information to the people of Iraq.

      QUESTION: The Committee to Protect Journalists has condemned this. Do you expect if these things continue you will also be condemning this?

      MS NAUERT: Yeah, I think that’s just – that’s a hypothetical, so I don’t want to get ahead of anything. But certainly, that would be a concern of ours if there are attempts to squash the voices of those who are trying to just bring more information to the people.”

      • adk

        “U.S. Sanctions on Russians are increasingly damaging America the most, in so many ways…”

        Care to give an example or two?

        • D4x

          HR 3364 is INconsistent with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations. POTUS was very specific in his Signing Statement:

          Since Aug. 2, zero contact between POTUS and Pres. Putin; or SecState and FM Lavrov. Unprecedented in US history. USA has to depend on lower level contacts, e.g. Satterfield at Astana Process on Syria, Amb Haley at UNSC; using proxies like France’s Macron, Israel’s Netanyahu, KSA, to talk with Russia.

          Oct. 19, 2017: final plenary session of the 14th annual meeting of the “Valdai International Discussion Club titled The World of the Future: Moving Through Conflict to Cooperation” http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/55882?utm_content=bufferbe5b2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

          • adk

            If the examples you cited are those “increasingly damaging America the most, in so many ways”, we are in great shape.

            Let’s take your Exhibit 1, HR 3364, “The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act “, passed in the Senate 98-2. It’s clear that it is very damaging to Putin &Co — they fought tooth and nail the previous, much more limited Magnitsky Act, but lost, and now that…

            Trump also came out somewhat of a loser (he tried to prevent the bill but failed), but how come America is a loser? Please explain.

            Your Exhibit 2: “Since Aug. 2, zero contact between POTUS and Pres. Putin; or SecState and FM Lavrov. Unprecedented in US history. ”

            Unprecedented, really?

            Let’s see: I don’t think there ever was a meeting between a US President and a Russian Tsar. During the Soviet times, 1917-1991: meetings between Pres. Roosevelt and Stalin (then WWII allies), 1943,1945; Truman-Stalin, 1945; Eisenhower-Khrushchev, 1959. Kennedy-Khrushchev, 1961,…skipping forward to Reagan-Gorbachev, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988; Bush Sr.-Gorbachev, 1989,1990… anyway, even when the issues between the two countries were as momentous as WWII or Cold War or basically the dissolution of the Soviet system, US Presidents and Soviet leaders managed to meet in person at most once a year.

            So Trump and Putin now haven’t met for, oh horror, all of three months. And Tillerson-Lavrov?
            Shudder to count the number of months since their last meeting. Makes you really nostalgic, doesn’t it, for former SoS Kerry who was always eager to meet Lavrov anywhere on the shortest notice and recall how much good those two achieved for the world.

          • D4x

            To ADK: Before W Wilson, POTUS travel was limited to the Western Hemisphere; before T Roosevelt, no sitting
            POTUS had traveled outside the USA. As Head of State, that made Ambassadors quite important in the conduct of foreign relations. President Thomas Jefferson had quite a correspondence: “Jefferson to Czar of Russia Alexander I, Washington April 19. 1806. I owe an acknowledgement to Your Imperial Majesty of the great satisfaction I have recieved from your letter of Aug. 20. 1805. and sincere expressions of the respect and veneration I entertain for your character. …” http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-01-02-3596&printable=yes

            As the first US Ambassador to Russia in 1809, before his election as POTUS, John Quincy Adams did meet Russian Tsar Alexander I, (1801-1825). Ditto James Buchanan, as Ambassador 1832-3, with Tsar Nicholas I (1825-1855).

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3bde82380eeaa67b9f33e9b7865adb4c14d5a99bb63139b59be8deab03c1bc97.jpg For those with curiosity, this is a fine summary of how President TR worked through Ambassadors negotiate The Treaty of Portsmouth [New Hampshire] that ended the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1905: THEODORE ROOSEVELT AND THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR 1904-1905 http://russojapanesewar.com/TR.html
            TR was deservedly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906.

            Congress can pass any law they want – it can still be totally UN-Constitutional. That is why I included
            link to POTUS Signing Statement, which is very detailed on which sections of HR 3364 are indeed unconstitutional. THAT is why some Russia sanctions damage the conduct of foreign relations, specifically the powers of the POTUS, who is the USA’s Head of State, because POTUS appoints and receives Ambassadors for/from other sovereign nations.

            The telephone changed the conduct of foreign relations. POTUS, VP Pence, all use the telephone to speak with other Heads of State, except they dare not call President Putin, or PM Medvedev in this witch hunt hysteria of 2017. Ditto SecTillerson and FM Lavrov, which is damaging, because they make a strong team on so many pressing issues, from the Arctic to Syria…

            Fortunately, the hotline is still working: “Memorandum of Understanding Between The United States of America and The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding the Establishment of a Direct Communications Signed at Geneva June 20, 1963 Entered into force June 20, 1963” https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4785.htm

            For those with curiosity, American-Russian relations before 1917, even through 1945, was quite cordial.
            Plus, our Revolutionary War might have ended differently had Catherine the Great agreed to repeated
            British requests to hire Cossack mercenaries. Her refusals led to Great Britain settling for Hessians, but that ending is for historians…

            Adk: Do not bother to reply, because your unfortunate disdain for the U.S. Constitution, real history, and President Trump, your snarky disdain, is quite obvious in this thread.

            Like so many longtime visitors/subscribers to TAI, bearing witness to this transformation into a
            Russia!Ukraine!RepeatBigLie!’ website is not worth a click.

          • adk

            “…this witch hunt hysteria of 2017”

            So there’s nothing with regard to Putin’s Russia in the US but “witch hunt hysteria”, now apparently bipartisan judging by 98-2 vote in the Senate for the sanctions bill.

            By comparison, you have unconditional trust in Russian sources such as kremlin.ru and in President Putin personally. It is really touching, D4x.

          • D4x

            adk: Before the 1980’s, this book used to be required reading on Wall Street, still in print, newest edition from Nov, 2016 is for sale at Amazon. The Salem Witch Trials are a useful chapter for understanding American media, and TAI’s, Russsia!Hysteria!
            “Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds”
            By Charles MacKay 1841
            Copyright 2001 by Litrix Reading Room https://vantagepointtrading.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Charles_Mackay-Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds.pdf
            Search for this book on Amazon.Com:

            THE TULIPOMANIA.
            THE O.P. MANIA.
            THE THUGS, or PHANSIGARS.

            THE CRUSADES
            THE WITCH MANIA.
            HAUNTED HOUSES

            NOV. 1, 2016: Current edition in print: https://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1539849589/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=NST5MRYGMKVT3X28926N

          • adk

            So what exactly is that Russia! Hysteria! in your opinion?

          • D4x

            repeating to adk: “Wasted too much time in answering what I thought was normal inquiry,
            not bait from a anti-Russian propagandist.
            Go fishing elsewhere.”
            August 14, 2017: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/08/14/why-sanctions-matter/

            I only took the time here, Oct. 31-Nov. 3, 2017: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/10/31/case-sanctioning-putins-propagandists/ for the Editorial Board of what used to be The American Interest, relaunched October 18, 2017 https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/10/18/a-relaunch/ into something unworthy of a digital birdcage liner.

          • D4x

            adk: “Primary Sources are immediate, first-hand accounts of a topic, from people who had a direct connection with it. Primary sources can include:
            >Texts of laws and other original documents.
            >Newspaper reports, by reporters who witnessed an event or who quote people who did.
            >Speeches, diaries, letters and interviews – what the people involved said or wrote.
            >Original research.
            >Datasets, survey data, such as census or economic statistics.
            >Photographs, video, or audio that capture an event.”
            https://umb.libguides.com/PrimarySources/secondary University of Massachusetts, Boston Healy

            THIS is a Primary Source, posted at en.kremlin.ru: Oct. 19, 2017: final plenary session of the 14th annual meeting of the“Valdai International Discussion Club titled The World of the Future: Moving Through Conflict to Cooperation”

            An earlier Primary Source I first read in 2012 was good reference, especially noting Putin’s specific reference to then new March 2009 POTUS Obama’s canceling GM’s sale of Opel to a Russian-financed consortium in
            2009, after Germany’s Merkel had worked so hard to get Bundestag approval along with the trade union stakeholders approval (which strained US-German relations in 2009 – the only American Merkel would talk with for awhile was Chuck Hagel):

            Feb. 27, 2012: “Vladimir Putin: “Russia and the Changing World” outlines the Russian’s president’s foreign policy objectives”

            THIS Primary Source: “31 October 2017 20:51 Joint statement by Iran, Russia and Turkey on the International Meeting on Syria in Astana 30-31 October 2017” http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2927578

            Is helpful to understand the news since Oct. 31, out of Syria, Moscow, Iran, Turkey, the USA, and the Kurds in Syria and Iraq; and some insight into this combination of a Primary Source with analysis:

          • D4x

            adk: you obviously did NOTread what you call “the sanctions bill”. HR 3364 “To provide congressional review and to counter aggression by the Governments of Iran, the Russian Federation, and North Korea, and for other purposes.” https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3364/text#toc-H3420FDCB95BC4483B63B45D6E38E3C66

            It was without precedent that HR3364 combined previous laws, Executive Orders on Iran and Russia with
            laws and UN Security Council Resolutions on North Korea into one law: HR 3364.
            Legally, the USA is still at war with North Korea, and Iran’s behavior since 1979 certainly gives cause for a
            state of war, which is why so many prior laws, Executive Orders, and UNSC Resolutions are rolled into HR3364.

            Russian aggression in Ukraine in 2014, Magnitsy, and meddling in elections does not merit being included in HR 3364. Sanctions against each nation should have been kept in separate laws.

            It was also a remarkable pace: HR 3364 was introduced July 24 and passed by House on July 25 vote:
            419-3, and then received in the Senate July 26, passed without amendment July 27 98-2, and presented to the President on July 28. No one in Congress took the time to proofread, or Albania would have been noted as an official signatory to NATO.

            The speed, and overwhelming vote majorities, are symptoms of “Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds”

            I DID read all of HR3364 July 29-Aug. 2, and POTUS Trump’s Signing Statement of Aug. 2, 2017. Both are Primary Sources. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3364/text#toc-H3420FDCB95BC4483B63B45D6E38E3C66

            It is noteworthy that POTUS’ Signing Statement solely focused on the unconstitutional provisions of HR 3364 TITLE II—SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND COMBATING
            TERRORISM AND ILLICIT FINANCING [December 18, 2014, the Ukraine Freedom Support
            Act of 2014 was enacted (Public Law 113–272; 22 U.S.C. 8921 et seq.), various Executive Orders, etc ]

            In conclusion, adk, you really need to learn the difference between Primary Sources, and Opinion as ‘analysis’, to “help to stop seeing Russia as the hereditary enemy of the human race.” Here is an excellent Secondary Source analysis: https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/30/thinking-clearly-about-russia/

    • adk

      “The problem is not with sanctioning a regime or its mouthpieces, but rather the problem is with consistency.”

      Are you saying that unless we sanction China (or specific Chinese apparatchiks?), we shouldn’t do anything about Putin’s propagandists?

      • KremlinKryptonite

        Yeah that’s basically what I’m saying. If you’re not going to do it for the moral reasons, and therefore in a consistent way to all all offenders, from Russia and china to lesser offenders like Germany and Sweden, then why do it? Living abroad I see how American and European inconsistencies get thrown right back in their faces, first hand. I certainly can’t defend it. So, through the course of the conversation, when it gets thrown in my face personally I have to keep my mouth shut because my country is doing wrong, and is massively inconsistent. It’s just an unfortunate fact. Some consistency and equity in punishing transgressions would make the punishments so much more moral and powerful.

        • adk

          Then that’s a prescription for paralysis and surrender on the world scene (see Obama, Presidency).

          We can’t solve world problems at once and we are never going to be totally (or maybe even mostly) consistent.
          Which is OK in the real world so long as we generally advance the US interests and the case of democracy in the world.

          • KremlinKryptonite

            I don’t think you and I are on the same page, or perhaps you misunderstood what I’m saying. What I’m talking about was definitely was not done in the Obama years, or the Bush years or the Clintons or the Bushs’ or the Reagan years. The way I understand you, however, well that seems more like Obama to me. Rubber ruler. No real principles. Trying to be pragmatic here and there while accomplishing nothing pretty much everywhere. Not to mention it gives a guy like Peter Lavelle, a US citizen, the opportunity to get on his Kremlin-backed show on RT and, in perfect English, point the finger and inconsistencies right back at the US, and he does.

            I’ve been in the service for 20 years and living abroad because if it for more than 12 of those. i’ve come to find it’s actually backwards from the way you just described. If you don’t have any principles then you are simply everybody’s potential mercenary. It certainly explains, in part, the USs relative and comparative decline to those less compromising (and those using force right on their border) which include china and Russia.

          • adk

            No, I did not misunderstand you. Let’s recap:

            I asked you a simple question to clarify your position. Should we NOT sanction specific Russian propagandists because we wouldn’t also sanction their counterparts in China? Those, as Ms.Orlova described, who are poisoning ordinary Russians with their crude anti-Western,anti-American, xenophobic propaganda while enjoying themselves in the hated West? Note that the sanctions she’s proposing would be to force them to be consistent: you hate the West, fine — then stay home and enjoy your own country you claim to love above all.

            Your reply couldn’t be more clear, “Yeah that’s basically what I’m saying. If you’re not going to do it for the moral reasons, and therefore in a consistent way to all all offenders, from Russia and china to lesser offenders like Germany and Sweden, then why do it? ”

            Well, it’s like saying, we can’t fix just this particular pothole because there are others as well, and we either need to fix them all or none. That’s a perfect recipe of always doing nothing. You elevate and expand the problem (now it’s Russia and China and Germany and Sweden…) until it becomes obviously impossible to resolve, and you are done.

            You then may feel good about your consistency and morals, but it’s basically putting a good face on paralysis in the world which the US simply cannot afford.

            In the real world, any US Administration has to prioritize its challenges and choose responses. To take just one current example, we are now fighting ISIS and its affiliates, but not Hezbollah and Assad (terrorists all). Yet if we were to follow your principle “If you’re not going to do it for the moral reasons, and therefore in a consistent way to all all offenders…then why do it? “, we’d either be doing nothing or fighting them all, consistently.

          • TNI Censors Comments Now

            What’s the US interest? Oh this will be great, guys and gals. Pray tell, what’s the US interest? It’s the US interest to have a $500 bil trade deficit and more than half of it goes to china? That’s the US interests right? It’s good for the US to lose high paying jobs and tech right? Gtfo. You are talking to grown ups and not CNN talking heads and Wall St apologists (for the most part anyway).

            The US doesn’t pursue its own interest anymore. Hasn’t for decades. Sorry you haven’t gotten the memo. Unless you’re gonna tell us all that conducting hated regime changes, supplying terrorists, and selling out Main St. for Wall St is in the US interests? If that’s what you’re saying then you’re a liar.

          • adk

            I suggest you take a glass of cold water. Better two, judging by your tone.
            Then comment on the topic at hand.

            I’ll give you a hint: it is a US interest to counter actions of an actively hostile power such as Russia.

          • Suzy Dixon

            Do you think Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Eric Holder should be probed along with the Podestas and Manafort? Oh and Mueller himself because he was in the FBI during those first four years when the uranium scandal was being dragged out and covered up. What should happen to them?

          • adk

            Totally off topic, but anyway: yes, absolutely, I think Obama & Co should be probed for their handling of the “Uranium One” deal, and Hillary & Bill in particular for their role in it.

            Here’s an excellent source:

            As well as Mueller who was then FBI Director. But I don’t want to speculate as to “what should happen to them” until I know the facts.

          • TNI Censors Comments Now

            An actively hostile power? lol c’mon get out of here with that silliness. Oh my lord. Sounds too similar to GWB lies about Iraq and axis of evil and WMDs. Yeah Russia is such a hostile power that the Clintons take their money. Russia so hostile that several European countries do billions and billions of dollars worth of business with Russia every year and there’s real push back each time sanctions need to be renewed. Just ask Merkel. Russia is super dangerous that’s why she can’t spend more money or NATO. Wait what?

          • adk

            Clintons taking Russian money is a proof that Russia isn’t hostile to US?

            As for the rest of your mind’s dump… you’d do yourself a lot of good if you could first learn something, then try to understand, and only then comment.

          • TNI Censors Comments Now

            Then my god, I hope you’re using all the meager means you have to call for Clintons to be arrested and indicted. We either have people and orgs all over Europe and in America who work with this hostile foreign power, and that happens to include the Clintons. OR this is all kabuki theater and mostly fake, and as George carlin put it “it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it” minus the profanity. Which seems more likely to you? I’ll tell you that for me option B seems to be most likely the case. It’s also applicable to the close kind of business dealings with the Saudi dictatorship, or the Chinese Communist Party regime, and many others.

          • adk

            Clintons’ (both) dealings with Russia and Russian agents were clearly unsavory. Manafort too had same quality dealings with Russians & their allies. I suspect in due time we’ll learn more about that and more names will be revealed. All that simply means that Russia promotes corruption and criminality (that’s their MO under the former Chekist Putin), seeks and finds eager participants in the West. Hard to understand?

          • Suzy Dixon

            Hmm. not really off-topic since you are saying that they [russia] are a hostile power. This thread seems to be asking, why go after one hostile power while on the other hand not to go after the other/s, or even help the other/s, like china? I think that’s the inconsistency that KK be speaking to, and it’s a fantastic point. However, I think we know the answer. It’s called corruption; it’s called corporate capture. I know, because I was part of it 15 years ago. I used to represent a large farm implements manufacturer, right about the time they were entering China, and that’s all I’m gonna say. It’s bad. The corruption has destroyed a lot of lives and livelihoods right here at home.

          • adk

            Russia is a hostile power, and an active one at that. Read Kirk Bennet’s excellent article right here explaining the basis of that hostility. Why go after Russia and not after China? First of all, in a way, we are “going after” both, but in different ways. Trump, as I understand, is trying to squeeze China to do something about NK nukes and missiles… which seems to be the only way to deal with that problem short of a devastating war.

            But you, I’m sure, know that our economies are quite interdependent which makes Trump’s task so much harder. Also, I really don’t know much about China’s internal policies and attitudes, but I think that their leadership legitimacy still rests, to a great degree, on economic development, not pure nationalism.

            Putin’s Russia, on the other hand, never underwent serious economic reform, and is sliding backwards after they lucked out on high oil & gas prices in 2000-2008. There’s very little Putin &Co can do about that yet they must stay in power or end up in jail (if not worse). Hence, aggressive anti-US, anti-Western policies, their only claim to legitimacy.

          • KremlinKryptonite

            Okay then, for you, it’s not some moral prerogative. We can’t claim that it is but then, on the other hand, say that in the interests of pragmatism we must selectively enforce our values and scruples. We’ve been doing that for many, many years. It’s not working out too well. And I’m inclined to agree with TNI censors comments, which is true by the way, about there being a long list of things in the US national interest that are either not pursued vigorously, or even worked against from the inside to benefit the truly, ultra privileged few, as Suzy is intimating.

          • adk

            Your reply is basically an exercise in obfuscation. You confirmed that you are for either doing all or nothing on a particular issue, and I replied that’s not how things are done in the real world, so your position defaults to doing nothing. That’s all.

          • TPAJAX

            you are confused about what has been said lol.

          • TPAJAX

            I wholeheartedly agree we need the consistency. But this just doesn’t seem to be feasible with internationalists and even overt foreign interests making US policy. I mean, look at this past 10 days. Mueller is looking into Podestas brother and Manafort. An indictment comes and what’s it for? It’s years old, old school corruption. We are talking early 2012! Manafort is being paid by Ukrainians and Russians and basically farming out or sub contracting the lobbying services to the Podesta group.

          • AnonymoussSoldier

            You’re talking about losers like Kissinger and Nixon straight through Obama, and possibly Trump (we will see) as it pertains to china. Not much of a relationship. One is losing money and jobs, and the other is taking them. If it were just the T-shirt jobs or twisting the wrapper on a Tootsie Pop then I suppose it wouldn’t be a big deal. But those are not the only jobs. It’s over 3 million jobs lost between 2001 and 2011. That’s the first 10 years since China join the WTO, an organization designed to discriminate against the United States, and the Chinese ascension was quite literally do to Bill Clinton’s several years of hard work convincing the Europeans that they should let them. About 1 million of those jobs were in electronic parts manufacturing. We’re talking about jobs that paid $1000 a week. Not too bad. Gone. That’s not the national interest. That’s only in the interest of the 1% of the 1%.

            Unfortunately, the corruptocrats who just happen to hold an American passport sellout Americans every day. Sometimes they really aren’t Americans even by birth, and they just bought the passport. Ask Kushners sister. They have no allegiance or loyalty. They have houses in multiple countries and billions of dollars and galavant and jetset around. Other countries arent so stupid. Other countries have very strict controls. America rose to prominence having those kinds of controls and tariffs, you name it.

          • adk

            Are you sure you replied to anything I said?

          • Muhammad Peace be Upon Me

            Mr. AnonymousSoldier. Those things are not in the US national interest, you are correct of course. I’ll tell you why they are done. Quite simply put, democracy is weak. Maybe you can think of it like the difference between a largely free market economy in peacetime, but that just doesn’t do in wartime when you actually need central planning. Even America knows this.

            In the community of nations we have this very bizarre, perverse situation where democracies make friends with and support non democracies, like china. What do you think happens when somebody completely committed and well armed shows up to a fight with a fat kid with his shirt untucked who’s holding a spoon and doesn’t really know what he’s doing there? Now imagine the fat kid trying to offer the guy about to kick his teeth in some of his candy. That’s the US-china relationship. That’s the US relationship with many many other countries. Of course it doesn’t have to be that way. Of course it’s that way because a comparative handful of people benefit at the expense of everyone else. It’s really not that hard to see how things like the Russian Revolution and French Revolution can happen. But the catch is of course the American democracy can be bought, and voters are fickle. It’s simply weakness.

            Who are some of the US’s most revered presidents? The ones who curtailed the most freedom during wars. Lincoln. Wilson. FDR. We know what works. Some put it into practice 24/7 and America doesn’t. That’s all.

  • Bankotsu

    Didn’t U.S. bomb a TV station in Yugoslavia?

    NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters


© The American Interest LLC 2005-2018 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.