Putinology, for those not up on the latest buzz words, is the use of Putin’s reputation as an international Svengali to tar the Trump administration. Glenn Greenwald has this to say about this still raging virus in the Democratic Party:
The game that establishment Democrats and their allies are playing is not just tawdry but dangerous. The U.S. political, media, military, and intelligence classes are still full of people seeking confrontation with Russia; included among them are military officials whom Trump has appointed to key positions.
As Stone observed in the 1950s, aggression toward and fearmongering over the Kremlin on the one hand, and smearing domestic critics of that approach as disloyal on the other, are inextricably linked. When one takes root, it’s very difficult to stop the other. And you can only propagate demonization rhetoric about a foreign adversary for so long before triggering, wittingly or otherwise, very dangerous confrontations between the two.
McCarthyism, you must remember, really is what triggered the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. We were fortunate to have an enemy who was not on autopilot (unlike later) and secure enough in his confidence as a leader not to have to posture as aggressive when the need for change appeared. We dodge that nuclear launch.
Now Trump wants some more toys to play with. The US and Russia are at nuclear parity by treaty and arms control design (as best as can be figured out). The next step with the Obama administration after signing New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in 2010 would have been preparation for another round of arms reductions to be signed before 2021. Since the split of the Soviet Union, it is the Russians who have been most eager to reduce nuclear arsenals. That might have led to US leadership in bringing down nuclear arsenals altogether had Republicans not been out chest-beating President Obama and putting him politically on the defensive. In four years, the entire US-Russia arms control framework might unwind and put us back in the dangerous times of the Cold War when arsenals and technologies were in a very rapid arms race.
President Trump is hinting in that direction with his unfounded assertion that the US is losing the nuclear arms race. If the US sponsors a breakout, the Democrats will be “me too” because of their investment in demonizing Putin.
And then, we will once again be concerned about both the US and Russian command-and-control communications systems (and likely those of China, India, Pakistan, UK, France, North Korea and Israel as well). And about other breakout nations restarting their own programs.
There was a lot of thought put into arms control technical aspects over the past 70 years, but most was confined to the days of analog communication, not the digital switching of the internet and not with the cyberwarfare and analog communications warfare capabilities now available beyond the arsenals of the superpowers (now the more co-equal great powers).
The US is still the most expensive military in the world, is still formidable, but Americans and US politicians should be more aware of its limits and the many boondoggles that all that national debt has paid for.
Banging the patriotic drum for domestic political advantage can lead us in the direction of not a second Cold War but a nuclear-armed World War I.
War has become normal in the last 15 years in a way that Vietnam never did. There is now the illusion that we can go on with $600 billion, $800 billion in military expenditures a year without raising taxes and without ever paying the piper. And as austerity continues to sap our economy, continue poor wage performance, and make people ever more testy, the impetus and hatred to strike out and end it quickly will increase as it did during the recession at the end of the 1950s. And Trump’s America will go spoiling for a fight. Given the box the demonization of Putin is painting Democrats into, they might cheer aggression of taunt Trump as not being tough enough on the Russkies. Without a diplomatic channel that can winnow out noise and chance events and stuff that is not actually policy or respond to disruptions like the assassination of the Archduke, events can richochet off each other into a crisis. Will cooler heads prevail?
If the raps on Putin and Trump are correct, this will be highly unlikely.
Resistance must look carefully at how relations outside the US proceed. So must some unified front of Democrats and any sane Republicans left.
Definition … South American Apocalypse?
Thanks. Fixed. But that’s an Alpacalypse.
I would have thought Putinology meant the study of Putin, haha. Spellcheck doesn’t accept the word (so far)….
One can find a lot to read regarding Western speculations on Putin’s game. I suspect that most come from the Cold Warrior sympathizers. The most thoughtful ones conclude that his efforts to influence Western elections in favor of nationalist authoritarians have the goal of splintering the existing Western “coalition” against Russia and generally reducing American influence, under the theory that American is always Russia’s principal adversary. It’s hard to see exactly what such regimes actually get him in the long run, and one can already predict that American isn’t going to be seen as any kind of global “leader” under the reckless, unqualified imbecile Trump. Quite the opposite, I will predict.
I didn’t have the impression that Dems are demonizing Putin, although they are certainly crediting the IC assessment that Putin worked to aid Der Trumper’s election. I think one can acknowledge that reality without demonizing Putin, don’t you? If Dems do indeed “cheer aggression” (by Putin?) in order to put strain on Trump they will indeed be playing with fire.
Putin does not seem to be operating in a way to reduce Western concerns after his seizure of Crimea, which I have long suggested was only to be expected given the unstable Ukrainian political situation and Russia’s military concerns over Sebastopol—which has been a major Russian naval base for centuries now. No Russian leader in any stripe is ever going to “restore” Crimea to Ukraine, and if that is the deal breaker for the lifting of sanctions, it will be a very long wait indeed. Of course, Putin’s destabilizing of Ukraine’s eastern border could be seen as falling into the same category due to the longstanding industrial infrastructure located in the region.
Both Russia and the US are now led by men whose political schtick is restoring “national greatness”. MRGA instead of MAGA, and without the prole cap online store, haha. It is a bit easier to see the attraction for a nation that has suffered the various forms of humiliation and destabilization that Russia suffered post 1991. The likelihood of serious conflict between two countries animated by such crap has risen.
In Rexxon Tillerson, we have a plutocrat SOS who has no plausible reason to hold his current position short of his massive egotism and Trumper’s pathetic adoration of an actual CEO “winner”. Rexx’s concern for his true lovechild, ExxonMobil, certainly exceeds by several orders of magnitude his concern for his “country”—whatever that word even means to a climate-wrecking resource extractor like him. It seems likely that his principal goal in taking the position was to restore the value of Exxon’s existing assets and oil “rights” which have been harmed by Obama’s sanctions, and to get his beloved granted even greater rights in Russia’s (irreversibly melting) Arctic. After Rexx, the deluge…
Trump’s bizarre Russia infatuation can only be explained by some crackpot scheme for personal or familial gain, as he basically had to go straight into the teeth of Cold War Repub ideology to seek the nomination. His “victory” has succeeded in getting many Repubs to now see Russia as a friend and Putin as a statesman to be admired, so the world is indeed turned upside down.
These two guys obviously want a “deal” with Russia, not a war, and Putin certainly wants the sanctions lifted above all. Some sort of Grand Bargain is certainly what both sides (Tillerson and Putin) have in mind. The first question is whether they can get the Repubs to go along with such a scenario. The Dems will be bit players in this (as in everything), but in my view that is where the rubber will meet the road on their potential demonization of Putin…
One fault I find with prominent US analysts of international relations is that the history of US diplomacy that forms the basis for their understanding of US national interests is the history of a bumptious wanna-be empire that seeks to be the promise of the New Jerusalem or the New World. In less than 100 years, it stretches coast-to-coast and into territory formerly Mexico. Recent scholarship argues that prior to the Civil War, that policy was driven by the plantation South seeking expansion of land for slavery. By the time of Henry Luce’s “American Century”, some aspect of American society (Luce’s media impact?) was supposed to spread to the rest of the world in benevolent grace. Under this umbrella, the US was the prime mover in the creation of the United Nations, the US developed the Marshall Plan to help in rebuilding of Central and Western Europe facing off against the Soviet Union’s Eastern Europe, and the US established itself in Korea to “foil Communist expansion”. It also rigged the elections in Greece and Italy, which frustrated the Stalinist communist parties’ rigging of the election and contributed to around 30 years of political instability in Greece and political volatility in Italy, dampened only when they were part of the foundign of the European Union. The US used to be able to do big picture diplomacy that gained the support of other countries. That skill is distinctly lacking since 9/11; now one can no longer argue that events have moved too fast.
Trump as a 39-year-old had a vision of negotiating what Ronald Reagan left on the table at Reykjavik – an end to nuclear weapons. He wrote a letter to the editor about it. The putative author of The Art of the Deal imagined it as the deal of a lifetime. Yes, it is ego and staking a place in history. Yes, at face value it is a crackpot scheme. But, Trump is in the position if Congress either pushes him or supports him of getting the necessary technical resources and experienced diplomats to carry out those negotiations. What stands in the way is what stood in Reagan’s way — a lack of confidence in Russia’s trustworthiness (and they in ours), the opposition of those who have made careers and fortunes in the development, maintenance, and possible delivery of nuclear weapons, and the warhawks in Congress who find chest-beating an easy sell to a fearful people. Don’t want the opposition to label you as “going soft”; you know what that slander is about. “You’re not man enough to kill people (or fire people)” still has a lot of emotional force for up-and-comers.
Here are some big picture items that neither party is considering and some experienced Democrats should shake off their past prejudices and consider them.
1. A quick assessment of what the failure to deal with global climate change means for national security, but more important the openings it provides for diplomacy that could build collective trust for other agenda items. Specifically:
–Assisting Russia in mitigating the effects of thawing of the Russian Arctic; no doubt Tillerson long has had an idea of how Russia’s oil/natural gas companies and Exxon/Mobil could make money off of bad news. Get those ideas on the table and start discussing them. It lowers the tensions between the countries (unless some low-level jackass on either side screws it up.)
— Low-elevation islands relief and help with resettlement of refugees. Australia is already distinctly not helpful on this issue, which plays into the general immigration issue. In some situations, the availability of national navy resources for relief might be a help.
— There is lots more when people start thinking about this instead of every TrumpTweet.
2. Adjusting to the reality that the US is no longer the de facto sole superpower through not having been tested. W thought getting tested was power; illusion is power. Some openness and less arrogance about other national powers in the world is the most profound form of small-r realism (reality-orientation) needed right now, not Henry Kissinger’s posturings as Clausewitz. One direction that might be helpful is a global system of regional collective security agreements that maintain stability through multiple memberships of nations that are members of both regions. A lot of those agreements already exist; bringing them forward as a means of stability is the change in policy. NATO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Mercosur, Organization of American States–each of them has some sort of collective security agreement and means of mediating disputes. In addition, there is the formal international court system in the Hague and elsewhere. Yes, this so much goes against the grain of American exceptionalism that that will be a tough sell domestically. Remember that persisting in believe that American exceptionalism is possible in power terms in the world is not longer possible because the US has been stripping its resources through endless war. Continuing to believe the illusion of American exceptionalism keeps leading to foreign policy disasters, the greatest risk of which is mutually assured destruction that is actually tested. (That’s why you must have something to actually preoccupy Trump’s ego. Can’t get much ego-polishing than eliminating the threat of nuclear war.)
Lest the cynics get too strong here, the reality of countries that currently have nuclear weapons is they know that they are now trapped into a very dangerous situation that does not bring the power they thought. But a situation that takes everyone backing out of it and a regime of verification and trust in order to get it done. The US and Russian nuclear arsenals are much less than a tenth of what they were at the end of the Cold War. It is US footdragging that has dogged negotiations all along. Entraining China, India, Pakistan, and the other nuclear nations as the number of allowable nuclear weapons drops to their level is the way forward to get full elimination. It would be the Nixon in China move for Trump’s Republicans.
The actual sanctions on Russia are an interesting case in the current environment. The US public needs to understand clearly who and what are sanctioned and what the stated conditions are to get the sanctions removed. There needs to be public clarity about which sanctions fall on ordinary Russian and which fall on specific Russian powers-that-be or institutions. And clarity about the terms to end sanctions. They must not depend on false allegations in order to continue sanctions in perpetuity. That is, the US should not be stoking propaganda by bad-faith negotiating terms. (Yes, we have been that cynical, especially the folks who want conflict forever.)
There really needs to be more public awareness about how US actions can manage the situation regardless of Russian response. The media and members of Congress have been more interested in bravado-signalling than in actual management of international relations. And there has been too much interest in scuttling progress and returning to a Cold War footing that (1) depends on the perceived stability of the mutually-assured-destruction doctrine that seemed to keep crises under control during the Cold War and (2) allows people to resume familiar roles in the negotiations.
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University weighs in. Cohen was one of the wisest commentators on US-Soviet relations during the Cold War and especially during the Glasnost-Perstroika era that ended the Soviet Union.
Why We Must Oppose the Kremlin-Baiting Against Trump
Cohen then addresses each of the six allegations in turn.
The political alignment of the USA’s two big parties once flipped polarity when the Democratic Party changed from being the party of Slavery to the Party of Human rights and Republican’s flipped from being against the South to embracing slavery in all its modern forms.
Are we about to see another flipping of the poles, with Democrats becoming the neo-conservative cold warriors and the Trumpublicans becoming the more pragmatic deal makers?
Clintonistas may have a need to blame their defeat on Putin – how else could their wounded pride recover from being beaten by Trump? But anyone with a brain will know that Putin’s Russia is neither as big nor as bad as would be required to make up the opposite pole to the USA’s near monopoly on global power.
For that to be possible, the EU would have to align itself with Russia against the USA – something they may be forced to do if Trump pursues his trade wars against the EU and tries to break it up by supporting Brexit and other anti-European measures.
It would be strange indeed if both US parties were to become aligned against the EU. We don’t want to be anybody’s bad guy.
The fear in the US is that the nationalist mood shown by Brexist will ripple across Europe as a result if anti-refugee and anti-immigrant bigotry and a longing for a white Europe. That nationalism is growing in its determination to end the EU and restore the national tensions that brought World War I and World War II.
The political geographic fact is that Eurasia is one continent and could be one market like the domestic US is. US international relations doctrine fears this on theoretical grounds — the doctrines of Mahan, MacKinder, and Spykman insist on a bipolar conflict between Eurasian army power and naval power. The neoconservatives are well-steeped in this doctrine that makes Russia and China a power competitor regardless of anything those nations do. And under worse-case-scenario policy-making, a competitor for power is automatically treated as a potential enemy.
US parties are inclined not to be competitors in foreign policy. “Politics stops at the waters edge” was the old political wisdom. The treatment of Obama was an extreme departure from previous practice on this.
My own fear is that Clinton is moving the Democrats into alignment with the Republican view of the world, Trump’s policies will be resisted, and we will see the return of the worst of W. All of the national security high-level officials are inclined in this direction and so are the members of Congress. I think there are some in DC who truly believe that they can provoke regime change in Russia and possibly China as well through tight containment. IMHO this is fighting the last war and completely nuts unless they are willing to return the US to a full-employment welfare state that can balance its budgets and develop its infrastructure.
But the Republican tax policy will not support the Republican national security policy with the continued destruction of middle class incomes that have been paying the bill.
No way Frank!
Just as in Brexit, it’s the rural areas vs the large metropolitan areas of big business, Wall Street and financial institutions.
Consider Trump’s victory as a corporate traffic accident at the crossroads of neoliberalism (Third Way) to a democracy with a social face. Not in a hundred years should a populist like Trump have been elected. IMO the Democrats LOST the election. The supporters of Bernie Sanders were closest to the pitchfork revolt in Spain, Italy and Greece. Corbyn is doing poorly because the media and Tories still believe in the greatness of the British Empire. They got the Blairites on their side, a tough hill to climb for Labour.
I’ll we closely watching the elections in France and Germany. What do you think of Martin Schulz vs Angela Merkel?
○ Spain Prosecutes Top Central Bankers For Crimes Against The People
○ EU opening on Brexit negotiations: a 60bn bill to the British
I don’t follow German politics closely enough to be sure, but my sense is that Martin Schultz is in danger of making the social democrats relevant again. I could see an outcome where the CDU and SPD end up fairly close to one another with the result that an agreement is reached for a Grand Coalition where Merkel is Chancellor for the first 2 years followed by Schultz for two years.
His stint as President of the EP will make him sensitive to the concerns across the EU that Brexit represents an existential threat and I expect a very hard line in negotiations. I would also expect considerable resistance to attempts by Trump to bully the EU, and it could be that the twin threats of Trump and Brexit could make the EU relevant to its citizens again.
“The political alignment of the USA’s two big parties once flipped polarity …”
The very topic on Sunday’s talk show of Meet The Press with some solid arguments.
Listened to Colorado governor John Hickenlooper (D) … good impression of him, a blue blot in a red desert of evangelical grace. Running for top spot in 2020? Video
○ Full Hickenlooper Interview: ‘Mountain West’ Shows A Path for Dems
○ Gov. Hickenlooper commends first healthcare partners for the State Innovation Model (2015)
The point in this post is becoming more salient.
Pierre M. Sprey, Franklin “Chuck” Spinney, CounterPunch: Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Concern about domestic politics is once again leading us away from dealing with what is generally recognized needs to happen — the dismantling of all nuclear arsenals and strict inspection of nuclear technology.
The article retells one of the high points of the Obama administration and its tragic flaw.
Viewed over 50 years, we are going backwards in making the argument for nuclear disarmament. The Cuban Missile Crisis had the impact of getting a strong non-proliferation regime and even getting Ronald Reagan to seek full elimination of nuclear weapons.
Will Putin read Trump’s speed-up as just the art of the deal or will he read it as Trump capitulating to his Congress? And the same question of seriousness needs to be examined for all of the nuclear powers. Is there domestic and military politics to entrenched in the idea of actually using nuclear weapons to do what most have already done with biological weapons and chemical weapons. (Except for the chemical weapons used in law enforcement.)