Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Russia’s first Time of Troubles, the 15 year interregnum between the Rurik and Romanov dynasties took place 1598 to 1613. Perhaps future historians will call the present day the second Time of Troubles. We have two items today on Russia and its prospects.
Richard Pipes gives us a penetrating look into the Russian psyche, and ends with implications for US foreign policy.
…We are right in objecting strenuously to Russia treating her one-time colonial possessions not as sovereign countries but dependencies lying in her “privileged zone of influence.” Even so, we should be aware of their sensitivity to introducing Western military forces so close to her borders. The Russian government and the majority of its citizens regard NATO as a hostile alliance. One should, therefore, be exceedingly careful in avoiding any measures that would convey the impression that we are trying militarily to “encircle” the Russian Federation. After all, we Americans, with our Monroe Doctrine and violent reaction to Russian military penetration into Cuba or any other region of the American continent, should well understand Moscow’s reaction to NATO initiatives along its borders.
This said, a line must be drawn between gentle manners and the hard realities of politics. We should not acquiesce in Russia treating the countries of her “near abroad” as satellites and we acted correctly in protesting last year’s invasion of Georgia. We should not allow Moscow a veto over the projected installation of our anti-rocket defenses in Poland the Czech Republic, done with the consent of their governments and meant to protect us against a future Iranian threat. These interceptors and radar systems present not the slightest threat to Russia, as confirmed publicly by Russian general Vladimir Dvorkin, an officer with long service in his country’s strategic forces. The only reason Moscow objects to them is that it considers Poland and the Czech Republic to lie within its “sphere of influence.”
Today’s Russians are disoriented: they do not quite know who they are and where they belong. They are not European: This is attested to by Russian citizens who, when asked. “Do you feel European?” by a majority of 56% to 12% respond “practically never.” Since they are clearly not Asian either, they find themselves in a psychological limbo, isolated from the rest of the world and uncertain what model to adopt for themselves. They try to make up for this confusion with tough talk and tough actions. For this reason, it is incumbent on the Western powers patiently to convince Russians that they belong to the West and should adopt Western institutions and values: democracy, multi-party system, rule of law, freedom of speech and press, respect for private property. This will be a painful process, especially if the Russian government refuses to cooperate. But, in the long run, it is the only way to curb Russia’s aggressiveness and integrate her into the global community.
John O’Sullivan believes that Russia is setting its sights on Ukraine.
…Also, the Kremlin has just introduced legislation into the Duma (certain to be passed) that enables the president to send troops abroad to “defend Russian soldiers and citizens, fight piracy, and defend foreign nations against threats.” This looks more like a domestic political tidying-up to clarify who in government has the power to order troop movements than a move to intimidate neighbors. As several pundits have pointed out, it tacitly admits that last year’s invasion of Georgia was illegal. Nonetheless it clears the constitutional decks for actions such as an invasion of Ukraine. Neighbors therefore have to take it seriously.
But that leaves open the question of whether such an invasion would be likely to succeed. Writing in the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, the respected Russian military commentator Pavel Felgenhauer is pretty skeptical all round: “The Russian military at present is clearly not ready to take on an offensive ‘liberation’ campaign deep within Ukraine. The Ukrainian armed forces are ineffective, but the territory of the possible theater of conflict is vast and densely populated, requiring a massive deployment of well-prepared troops. Russia needs at least three more years of radical military modernization and some rearmament, before it may contemplate a Crimea and Ukraine mission.” After the unexpected mauling that its forces got at the hands of the small Georgian army, Russia is unlikely to take needless risks. In the meantime, however, Russia may continue to wage economic- and political-destabilization campaigns against Ukraine, Georgia, and other parts of the post-Soviet space on which its paranoia alights — with the potential military threat hovering in the background. …
…For as long as Russia felt unable to use force — at least three years in the above calculation — the Moscow–Kiev battle would be waged mainly over economics and, in particular, over the European Union’s policy towards both countries. Should closer EU-Russia economic cooperation go ahead? Should Russia be admitted to the EU’s Eastern Partnership, which is designed to protect Ukraine and other post-Soviet Eastern countries outside the Union?
Europe itself is bitterly though quietly divided over how to deal with these questions. In July, a stratospherically distinguished group of Central and East European statesmen, including Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, sent their own open letter to the Obama administration appealing for stronger U.S. intervention in European affairs — in effect because Western Europe alone could not be relied upon to defend democracy, national sovereignty, and the maintenance of a common Atlantic defense. …
Bill Kristol comments that Republicans are sticking to conservative principles.
…Meanwhile, as a decision looms for Obama on a new strategy requiring increased numbers of troops in Afghanistan, a Washington Post-ABC News poll last week discovered that “majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction of troop levels.” Conservatives and Republicans are far more supportive of the war–they “remain the war’s strongest backers”–and a majority of conservatives don’t merely support the war but say they approve of President Obama’s handling of it.
So much for charges of knee-jerk or unprincipled partisanship. Conservatives support a president they generally distrust because they think it important the country win the war in Afghanistan. And despite temptations to make political hay out of a war that’s getting more unpopular, and despite doubts about Obama as commander in chief, Republican political leaders remain supportive of the war effort. They are urging Obama to commit himself unambiguously to win the war and to approve General Stanley McChrystal’s coming request for more troops. And in urging the administration to follow this course, they are willing to see the president get credit for doing the right thing.
In sum: In opposing Obamacare and supporting victory in Afghanistan, conservatives and Republicans are behaving as a loyal opposition. Those who were worried that partisanship would trump patriotism among conservatives, and that loathing of Obama would overcome loyalty to the country among Republicans, have so far been proved wrong. And those who were worried that timidity would prevent vigorous opposition where warranted in domestic policy have been so far proven wrong as well. The Republican party and the conservative movement are behaving in a way that can make Republicans and conservatives proud.
As for today’s liberals: They just don’t want America to win wars, do they? They’re ready, willing, and able to see America lose in Afghanistan. Luckily, President Obama seems to understand that the United States can and ought to win. And the Obama administration will benefit from the support of a loyal opposition if it chooses to surge to victory.
Jennifer Rubin thinks the White House is getting the wrong message from Town Halls.
… It is a measure of just how politically tone deaf the Obama team has become that they choose to attack ordinary Americans rather than absorb the message being sent. They have become so used to the echo chamber of their fellow liberals and the mainstream media (I repeat myself) that they still seem unaware of the vast gulf between themselves and citizens motivated enough to turn out in record numbers to express their concerns.
After weeks of this and a mound of polling data to confirm what we are seeing and hearing, the president has yet to acknowledge that he hears what citizens are saying or understands the need to rethink health-care reform. He persists in decrying “misinformation”—implying that voters are dim and have been duped by nefarious forces. It is a politically dangerous place for a president to be—defaming voters and ignoring their pleas. It is one thing to go to war with the opposition party but quite another to go to war with voters. In his hubris, Obama has forgotten who is in charge.
Shorts from National Review. Here are two:
Rather than leave students free to choose, the professor of Economics 301 at the University of Chicago assigned seating by alphabet. That put Rose Director and Milton Friedman next to each other. They married in 1938, forming one of the 20th century’s most important intellectual and personal partnerships. As a free-market economist, Milton earned scholarly respect and popular fame. Rose was his constant collaborator, especially on books and columns that involved questions of public policy. Friends regarded her as a bit more practical — and a bit more conservative — than her libertarian husband. Pres. George W. Bush once joked that she was the only person known to have won an argument with him. Until Milton’s death in 2006, they were almost inseparable, often seen holding hands in public, as if their 1930s romance had never ended. Rose Friedman died as this issue was going to press, age 98. R.I.P.
The Left’s main complaint about the stimulus was that it was too small. Looking overseas, Paul Krugman and economists of his stripe contended that stimulus packages in Germany, France, and other major economies also were too small. The United States spent 2 percent of GDP, while Germany, whose export-driven economy had taken a much harder hit, spent only 1.5 percent. France spent even less. It is true that “automatic stabilizers” — countercyclical features of the Euro-welfare state — complicate the picture a little, but even accounting for those, the Europeans spent less in response to more radical contractions. If the neo-Keynesians were not immune to evidence, they might find it persuasive that Germany and France have shown unexpected growth and have exited the global recession, in spite of their allegedly anemic emergency measures. Also on the rebound: China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Japan. Our idea for a stimulus would have been much cheaper: Export Paul Krugman.
Raymond Sokolov takes a culinary tour around Richmond, Virginia.
…In the down-home department, Richmond offers the barbecue lover a high density of way stations at which to feed his habit. After some studious inquiry, I settled on two expert purveyors of meat slow-cooked in pits. For a Saturday lunch, I joined some clean-cut families in Bermuda shorts at Buz and Ned’s Real Barbecue, where reality lay suspended somewhere between the spic and span patio, with its vertical rolls of paper toweling meant to invoke some backwoods haunt, and a fine-looking modern car wash. The smoky, juicy ribs were worth the slight detour from downtown, but the brisket sandwich wasn’t.
Further out of town, on a stretch of Jefferson Davis Highway not beautified by Lady Bird Johnson or anybody else, I hunkered down happily at the counter of Hank’s Pit Cooked Barbecue, in view of the full-size Elvis replica, a big American flag and assorted collectibles. Hank’s was founded in 1963 by Bill and Helen Hanchey (whence the “Hank”), who brought their notion of Q with them from Rose Hill, N.C. (pop. 1,330, alleged home of the world’s largest frying pan and muscadine winery). If you want barbecue at Hank’s, your choice boils down to pork shoulder, sliced or chopped, both with a strong vinegar tang. We picked chopped and reveled in the austere, sour pigginess of the experience. Hank’s is an import to the Commonwealth of Virginia, sure, but once you are inside you’ll have no trouble imagining yourself at some country crossroads south of Raleigh.
You get a similar whiff of what Horace the Roman poet called “boondocks in the city” (rus in urbe) at Comfort, found in a re-emerging Richmond neighborhood. Chef Jason Alley acquired his knowledge of fried green tomatoes, okra and catfish at his birthplace in Appalachia, Va., but seasoned himself in serious kitchens from Atlanta to Illinois before heading here and staking a claim for food that, he says, won’t scare people. The night I stopped by, the minimalist dining room was very full of nice people deciding whether to try the meatloaf or the grilled pork chop. Comfort is a superficially simple but culinarily expert nod to the basics of its region. But if you just must cater to your inner gourmet, you can order the Kobe skirt steak.
Or you could drive your Prius to the other side of town, to an un-picturesque stretch of Main Street down the hill from the pristine old Richmond neighborhood where Patrick Henry demanded liberty or death, and see what’s on for dinner at Millie’s Diner. …