ã??
"Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era". To impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking." [1]
Both comments are applicable to today's current affairs. The answer is simple. The U.S. wants domination of the Eurasian continent for its global hegemony and is increasingly desperate to attain this as both Russia and China signal clearly their intentions of creating a multipolar world order.
The U.S. response is primarily military backing its tattered and torn but not yet negated economic flag. None of the authors address the prime underlying motive at all, but it is necessary when discussing why Russia is the way it is today.
Democracy
Putin is presented, within his evil role, as being an absolute authority, not allowing democracy to emerge, with indications that is also the general nature of the Russian people. All three books rely on the assumption that the U.S. is the paragon of democracy, that democracy is its greatest virtue.
However right from the start with the declarations within the Federalist Papers that democracy and the "factions" that were to be avoided, democracy was not the prime concern of the founding fathers. That is evident throughout U.S. history from it wars against the indigenous people, the wars against Mexico and Spain, followed by its many incursions into Latin America, and spreading out through Southeast and South Asia, into today's military attempts at dominance in the Middle East (with its Israeli ally) and Africa.
In current events, the ridiculousness of the U.S. Electoral College system, the influence of the decidedly undemocratic corporations, NGOs, and financial wheelers and dealers are erupting in the now rancorous and acrimonious presentations between the various levels of government. To call Russia undemocratic is to not be able to look at one's own lack of democracy.
The Three Russketeers
I have already mentioned Legvold's Return to Cold War. It tries to argue - and fails - that both sides are at fault, the U.S. essentially for not understanding how someone could react negatively to their security and democratic assistance to others, while Russia suffers from its misperceptions of U.S. intentions as well as its generalized authoritarian character.
Legvold uses arguments that are somewhat contradictory, uses assumptions that are not statistically true (especially vis a vis economics), and uses ad hominem verbiage that tarnishes an issue without presenting a counter argument. From the latter Legvold uses descriptors such as venomous, poisonous, unrealistic, malevolent, heavy handed, troublemaker - all of which create a negative impression without actually presenting an argument against the described actions.
The second bad book of the trio I had higher expectations for. Walter Laqueur has published numerous historical works, most relating to Germany, Russia, and Israel. His book Putinism [2] is the most recent but suffers from poor organization, much too much discussion of philosophical elements, and some essentially poorly argued positions. As much as it is titled Putinism, it hardly gives a good account of who Putin is or what the invented term Putinism really is.
The book I had the least expectations for turned out to be the best, one that drew me into its clear, linear, well researched and referenced history. Steven Lee Myers The New Tsar [3] presents back cover descriptors that have an obvious bias, using phrases referencing Putin's history such as "brutal repression of dissent", "new authoritarianism", "destabilizing world leader", and "merciless." It fits well into my initial view about rose colored glasses and blinders in relation how the U.S. fits into the presentation. However, from decades of reading on the U.S. Empire, from information gleaned through various non mainstream media sources, I was well buttressed to wade through the book.
Apart from the obvious bias, I was pleasantly surprised by the thoroughness of the history and its references and the quality of the writing style (much better than the above two). I also had an interesting emotional reaction: from what Myers is saying, combined with what I already know of current events and U.S political and economic/military history, Putin - rather than being evil incarnate - became the quintessential right man in the right place at the right time in order to preserve and save Russia as a sovereign state against U.S. intentions at control.
Yes, if you are a U.S. patriot, without much sense of global history, or your own history as a militarized empire, or willfully ignore those aspects of international relations, then yes, Putin is certainly a "destabilizing leader". Against the U.S. New World Order as per Wolfowitz, Brzezinski, McCain, Bolton, Kaplan, Kagan et al, that is good news.
ã??
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
10
6
5
