Follow by Email

Monday, February 24, 2014

David Brooks, "Fake Putin Diary!": Did America Win the Cold War?

Did the United States win the Cold War when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down? Perhaps. But we now have an American president struggling hand over fist to cede Western power and influence to a Russian strongman, intent upon restoring Soviet glory.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Fake Putin Diary!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/opinion/brooks-fake-putin-diary.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), David Brooks finally wakes up to Vladimir Putin's grotesque ambition, evidenced by:

  • the 2014 winter Olympics games in Sochi, which highlighted Putin's fear and hatred of homosexuals;
  • Putin's failed attempt to restore the Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence, which brought rioting and death to the streets of Kiev;
  • Putin's "cooperation" with Obama involving plans, never to be consumated, for the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Brooks concludes his ersatz diary entry by writing:

"It’s easy to govern when you’ve got the winds of history at your back. I’ve got the wolves of chaos growling in my face. Capital flight is accelerating. The ruble is devaluing. Social media, the youth culture, the tides of mass protest, democracy and capitalism undermine the authoritarian mind-set.

Yet I impose my will with the beauty of gold and the wisdom of sapphire. I don’t 'evolve,' as everybody suggests. Evolution leads to chaos. I learned that from Gorby!

The events of the 1990s gave the world one narrative, the Velvet Revolution narrative. But I’m going to teach another narrative: that what begins with people massing in a city square ends with a strongman triumphing in a palace. In my own way, I will define this age."

Putin will "define this age"? Perhaps. But only because a foreign affairs naif, occupying the Oval Office, chose to empower this former KGB officer. It's again time to recollect Obama's open microphone gaffe, in which the American president asked outgoing Russian president Medvedev to convey to incoming president Putin a promise of future "flexibility" during Obama's second term.

Well, Putin sure as heck got the message and has been acting on it. The agreement for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, brokered by Putin, is not being implemented (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBREA0S19720140130), and talks with Iran concerning the cessation of its nuclear weapons program are going nowhere, although economic sanctions imposed against the Khamenei regime have crumbled (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/24/iranian-oil-exports-rise-markedly-since-interim-deal/?hpid=z3).

Affording Putin even greater comfort, we now have US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel telling us that American military dominance can "no longer be taken for granted" and that budget cuts will place "additional risks" upon the US military (see: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hagel-american-military-dominance-can-no-longer-be-taken-for-granted/). Yesterday, Peter Wehner wrote regarding the dismantling and enfeeblement of America's military (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/02/24/obama-consciously-engineering-americas-decline/):

"More than any president in my lifetime, Barack Obama has damaged virtually everything he’s touched. When it comes to American interests, he’s a one-man wrecking ball."

"Wrecking Ball"? Bruce Springsteen? I'm thinking more in terms of the Rolling Stones' "You Make a Grown Man Cry."

2 comments:

  1. Yesterday,an article appeared on Yahoo,describing the increase of drug smuggling along our coasts,due to cutbacks for the U.S. Coast Guard.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "More than any president in my lifetime, Barack Obama has damaged virtually everything he’s touched. When it comes to American interests, he’s a one-man wrecking ball."
    It's hard to disagree with this. Moreover, he's a wrecking ball when it comes to world interests in general.
    I wonder if he can nominate himself ... for the second Nobel.

    ReplyDelete