More circumstantial evidence linking the hacks of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails, as well as the DNC and DCCC hacks, back to Russia has emerged. RT (Russia Today) went public, both by tweet and with reporting, on the most recent dump of Podesta’s emails before Wikileaks actually posted them.
Earlier today, @RT_com tweeted & pubbed a story on fresh @wikileaks Podesta emails dump before WL posted them to the site & tweeted a link. pic.twitter.com/nHb0GIq4Am
— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) October 13, 2016
RT is widely considered to be a Russian government funded propaganda outlet. As Putin stated in a 2013 interview with RT:
I’d like to emphasize something of the key importance. We never expected this to be a news agency or a channel which would defend the position of the Russian political line. We wanted to bring an absolutely independent news channel to the news arena.
Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign.
As the investigation into the hacked emails and other data files continues, as well as the investigation into Trump foreign and economic policy advisor Carter Page’s ties to Russian government officials, I think its important to reflect a bit on where Russia may be coming from. Especially as we see renewed statements that the US never takes Russia’s interests into consideration (by the aforementioned Carter Page) or that the election of Secretary Clinton would lead to a nuclear war. Putin is an old KGB hand; he came up through that intelligence service and it has been argued that his training and acculturation within it shapes his worldview and actions. One of the seminal pieces attempting to get American policy makers to understand Russia within the Soviet Union, which is the Russia that Putin grew up in both personally and professionally, is the Long Telegram.
On February 22, 1946 George Kennan* sent a lengthy diplomatic cable from Moscow Station, as the US Embassy in Moscow is sometimes called, back to the State Department in DC. Kennan was the Charge de Affairs at US Embassy Moscow and he would go on to publish in 1947, as Mr. X, an outline of his Long Telegram in Foreign Affairs. This is why the Long Telegram is sometimes called the X Article. While Russia and the Russians have undergone many changes in the 70 years since Kennan wrote his lengthy cable, it is still one of the best examples of a true subject matter expert, with deep regional and socio-cultural expertise, attempting to get non-subject matter experts, over half a world away, to understand the people behind the challenges and threats that they were facing and to avoid mirroring/the wilderness of mirrors. It is well worth reading even as Kennan’s argument for containment of Soviet expansion may no longer be necessary, desirable, or even possible in regards to modern Russia under Vladimir Putin. For those interested, the entire Long Telegram is below the fold.
The Long Telegram
861.00/2 – 2246: Telegram
The Charge in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State
SECRET
Moscow, February 22, 1946–9 p.m. [Received February 22–3: 52 p.m.]
511. Answer to Dept’s 284, Feb 3 [13] involves questions so intricate, so delicate, so strange to our form of thought, and so important to analysis of our international environment that I cannot compress answers into single brief message without yielding to what I feel would be dangerous degree of over-simplification. I hope, therefore, Dept will bear with me if I submit in answer to this question five parts, subjects of which will be roughly as follows:
(1) Basic features of post-war Soviet outlook.
(2) Background of this outlook
(3) Its projection in practical policy on official level.
(4) Its projection on unofficial level.
(5) Practical deductions from standpoint of US policy.
I apologize in advance for this burdening of telegraphic channel; but questions involved are of such urgent importance, particularly in view of recent events, that our answers to them, if they deserve attention at all, seem to me to deserve it at once. There follows
Part 1: Basic Features of Post War Soviet Outlook, as Put Forward by Official Propaganda Machine
Are as Follows:
(a) USSR still lives in antagonistic “capitalist encirclement” with which in the long run there can be no permanent peaceful coexistence. As stated by Stalin in 1927 to a delegation of American workers:
“In course of further development of international revolution there will emerge two centers of world significance: a socialist center, drawing to itself the countries which tend toward socialism, and a capitalist center, drawing to itself the countries that incline toward capitalism. Battle between these two centers for command of world economy will decide fate of capitalism and of communism in entire world.”
(b) Capitalist world is beset with internal conflicts, inherent in nature of capitalist society. These conflicts are insoluble by means of peaceful compromise. Greatest of them is that between England and US.
(c) Internal conflicts of capitalism inevitably generate wars. Wars thus generated may be of two kinds: intra-capitalist wars between two capitalist states, and wars of intervention against socialist world. Smart capitalists, vainly seeking escape from inner conflicts of capitalism, incline toward latter.
(d) Intervention against USSR, while it would be disastrous to those who undertook it, would cause renewed delay in progress of Soviet socialism and must therefore be forestalled at all costs.
(e) Conflicts between capitalist states, though likewise fraught with danger for USSR, nevertheless hold out great possibilities for advancement of socialist cause, particularly if USSR remains militarily powerful, ideologically monolithic and faithful to its present brilliant leadership.
(f) It must be borne in mind that capitalist world is not all bad. In addition to hopelessly reactionary and bourgeois elements, it includes (1) certain wholly enlightened and positive elements united in acceptable communistic parties and (2) certain other elements (now described for tactical reasons as progressive or democratic) whose reactions, aspirations and activities happen to be “objectively” favorable to interests of USSR These last must be encouraged and utilized for Soviet purposes.
(g) Among negative elements of bourgeois-capitalist society, most dangerous of all are those whom Lenin called false friends of the people, namely moderate-socialist or social-democratic leaders (in other words, non-Communist left-wing). These are more dangerous than out-and-out reactionaries, for latter at least march under their true colors, whereas moderate left-wing leaders confuse people by employing devices of socialism to seine interests of reactionary capital.
So much for premises. To what deductions do they lead from standpoint of Soviet policy? To following:
(a) Everything must be done to advance relative strength of USSR as factor in international society. Conversely, no opportunity most be missed to reduce strength and influence, collectively as well as individually, of capitalist powers.
(b) Soviet efforts, and those of Russia’s friends abroad, must be directed toward deepening and exploiting of differences and conflicts between capitalist powers. If these eventually deepen into an “imperialist” war, this war must be turned into revolutionary upheavals within the various capitalist countries.
(c) “Democratic-progressive” elements abroad are to be utilized to maximum to bring pressure to bear on capitalist governments along lines agreeable to Soviet interests.
(d) Relentless battle must be waged against socialist and social-democratic leaders abroad.
Part 2: Background of Outlook
Before examining ramifications of this party line in practice there are certain aspects of it to which I wish to draw attention.
First, it does not represent natural outlook of Russian people. Latter are, by and large, friendly to outside world, eager for experience of it, eager to measure against it talents they are conscious of possessing, eager above all to live in peace and enjoy fruits of their own labor. Party line only represents thesis which official propaganda machine puts forward with great skill and persistence to a public often remarkably resistant in the stronghold of its innermost thoughts. But party line is binding for outlook and conduct of people who make up apparatus of power–party, secret police and Government–and it is exclusively with these that we have to deal.
Second, please note that premises on which this party line is based are for most part simply not true. Experience has shown that peaceful and mutually profitable coexistence of capitalist and socialist states is entirely possible. Basic internal conflicts in advanced countries are no longer primarily those arising out of capitalist ownership of means of production, but are ones arising from advanced urbanism and industrialism as such, which Russia has thus far been spared not by socialism but only by her own backwardness. Internal rivalries of capitalism do not always generate wars; and not all wars are attributable to this cause. To speak of possibility of intervention against USSR today, after elimination of Germany and Japan and after example of recent war, is sheerest nonsense. If not provoked by forces of intolerance and subversion “capitalist” world of today is quite capable of living at peace with itself and with Russia. Finally, no sane person has reason to doubt sincerity of moderate socialist leaders in Western countries. Nor is it fair to deny success of their efforts to improve conditions for working population whenever, as in Scandinavia, they have been given chance to show what they could do.
Falseness of those premises, every one of which predates recent war, was amply demonstrated by that conflict itself Anglo-American differences did not turn out to be major differences of Western World. Capitalist countries, other than those of Axis, showed no disposition to solve their differences by joining in crusade against USSR. Instead of imperialist war turning into civil wars and revolution, USSR found itself obliged to fight side by side with capitalist powers for an avowed community of aim.
Nevertheless, all these theses, however baseless and disproven, are being boldly put forward again today. What does this indicate? It indicates that Soviet party line is not based on any objective analysis of situation beyond Russia’s borders; that it has, indeed, little to do with conditions outside of Russia; that it arises mainly from basic inner-Russian necessities which existed before recent war and exist today.
At bottom of Kremlin’s neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.
It was no coincidence that Marxism, which had smoldered ineffectively for half a century in Western Europe, caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia. Only in this land which had never known a friendly neighbor or indeed any tolerant equilibrium of separate powers, either internal or international, could a doctrine thrive which viewed economic conflicts of society as insoluble by peaceful means. After establishment of Bolshevist regime, Marxist dogma, rendered even more truculent and intolerant by Lenin’s interpretation, became a perfect vehicle for sense of insecurity with which Bolsheviks, even more than previous Russian rulers, were afflicted. In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand. In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it. It is fig leaf of their moral and intellectual respectability. Without it they would stand before history, at best, as only the last of that long succession of cruel and wasteful Russian rulers who have relentlessly forced country on to ever new heights of military power in order to guarantee external security of their internally weak regimes. This is why Soviet purposes most always be solemnly clothed in trappings of Marxism, and why no one should underrate importance of dogma in Soviet affairs. Thus Soviet leaders are driven [by?] necessities of their own past and present position to put forward which [apparent omission] outside world as evil, hostile and menacing, but as bearing within itself germs of creeping disease and destined to be wracked with growing internal convulsions until it is given final Coup de grace by rising power of socialism and yields to new and better world. This thesis provides justification for that increase of military and police power of Russian state, for that isolation of Russian population from outside world, and for that fluid and constant pressure to extend limits of Russian police power which are together the natural and instinctive urges of Russian rulers. Basically this is only the steady advance of uneasy Russian nationalism, a centuries old movement in which conceptions of offense and defense are inextricably confused. But in new guise of international Marxism, with its honeyed promises to a desperate and war torn outside world, it is more dangerous and insidious than ever before.
It should not be thought from above that Soviet party line is necessarily disingenuous and insincere on part of all those who put it forward. Many of them are too ignorant of outside world and mentally too dependent to question [apparent omission] self-hypnotism, and who have no difficulty making themselves believe what they find it comforting and convenient to believe. Finally we have the unsolved mystery as to who, if anyone, in this great land actually receives accurate and unbiased information about outside world. In atmosphere of oriental secretiveness and conspiracy which pervades this Government, possibilities for distorting or poisoning sources and currents of information are infinite. The very disrespect of Russians for objective truth–indeed, their disbelief in its existence–leads them to view all stated facts as instruments for furtherance of one ulterior purpose or another. There is good reason to suspect that this Government is actually a conspiracy within a conspiracy; and I for one am reluctant to believe that Stalin himself receives anything like an objective picture of outside world. Here there is ample scope for the type of subtle intrigue at which Russians are past masters. Inability of foreign governments to place their case squarely before Russian policy makers–extent to which they are delivered up in their relations with Russia to good graces of obscure and unknown advisors whom they never see and cannot influence–this to my mind is most disquieting feature of diplomacy in Moscow, and one which Western statesmen would do well to keep in mind if they would understand nature of difficulties encountered here.
Part 3: Projection of Soviet Outlook in Practical Policy on Official Level
We have now seen nature and background of Soviet program. What may we expect by way of its practical implementation?
Soviet policy, as Department implies in its query under reference, is conducted on two planes: (1) official plane represented by actions undertaken officially in name of Soviet Government; and (2) subterranean plane of actions undertaken by agencies for which Soviet Government does not admit responsibility.
Policy promulgated on both planes will be calculated to serve basic policies (a) to (d) outlined in part 1. Actions taken on different planes will differ considerably, but will dovetail into each other in purpose, timing and effect.
On official plane we must look for following:
(a) Internal policy devoted to increasing in every way strength and prestige of Soviet state: intensive military-industrialization; maximum development of armed forces; great displays to impress outsiders; continued secretiveness about internal matters, designed to conceal weaknesses and to keep opponents in dark.
(b) Wherever it is considered timely and promising, efforts will be made to advance official limits of Soviet power. For the moment, these efforts are restricted to certain neighboring points conceived of here as being of immediate strategic necessity, such as Northern Iran, Turkey, possibly Bornholm However, other points may at any time come into question, if and as concealed Soviet political power is extended to new areas. Thus a “friendly Persian Government might be asked to grant Russia a port on Persian Gulf. Should Spain fall under Communist control, question of Soviet base at Gibraltar Strait might be activated. But such claims will appear on official level only when unofficial preparation is complete.
(c) Russians will participate officially in international organizations where they see opportunity of extending Soviet power or of inhibiting or diluting power of others. Moscow sees in UNO not the mechanism for a permanent and stable world society founded on mutual interest and aims of all nations, but an arena in which aims just mentioned can be favorably pursued. As long as UNO is considered here to serve this purpose, Soviets will remain with it. But if at any time they come to conclusion that it is serving to embarrass or frustrate their aims for power expansion and if they see better prospects for pursuit of these aims along other lines, they will not hesitate to abandon UNO. This would imply, however, that they felt themselves strong enough to split unity of other nations by their withdrawal to render UNO ineffective as a threat to their aims or security, replace it with an international weapon more effective from their viewpoint. Thus Soviet attitude toward UNO will depend largely on loyalty of other nations to it, and on degree of vigor, decisiveness and cohesion with which those nations defend in UNO the peaceful and hopeful concept of international life, which that organization represents to our way of thinking. I reiterate, Moscow has no abstract devotion to UNO ideals. Its attitude to that organization will remain essentially pragmatic and tactical.
(d) Toward colonial areas and backward or dependent peoples, Soviet policy, even on official plane, will be directed toward weakening of power and influence and contacts of advanced Western nations, on theory that in so far as this policy is successful, there will be created a vacuum which will favor Communist-Soviet penetration. Soviet pressure for participation in trusteeship arrangements thus represents, in my opinion, a desire to be in a position to complicate and inhibit exertion of Western influence at such points rather than to provide major channel for exerting of Soviet power. Latter motive is not lacking, but for this Soviets prefer to rely on other channels than official trusteeship arrangements. Thus we may expect to find Soviets asking for admission everywhere to trusteeship or similar arrangements and using levers thus acquired to weaken Western influence among such peoples.
(e) Russians will strive energetically to develop Soviet representation in, and official ties with, countries in which they sense Strong possibilities of opposition to Western centers of power. This applies to such widely separated points as Germany, Argentina, Middle Eastern countries, etc.
(f) In international economic matters, Soviet policy will really be dominated by pursuit of autarchy for Soviet Union and Soviet-dominated adjacent areas taken together. That, however, will be underlying policy. As far as official line is concerned, position is not yet clear. Soviet Government has shown strange reticence since termination hostilities on subject foreign trade. If large scale long term credits should be forthcoming, I believe Soviet Government may eventually again do lip service, as it did in 1930’s to desirability of building up international economic exchanges in general. Otherwise I think it possible Soviet foreign trade may be restricted largely to Soviet’s own security sphere, including occupied areas in Germany, and that a cold official shoulder may be turned to principle of general economic collaboration among nations.
(g) With respect to cultural collaboration, lip service will likewise be rendered to desirability of deepening cultural contacts between peoples, but this will not in practice be interpreted in any way which could weaken security position of Soviet peoples. Actual manifestations of Soviet policy in this respect will be restricted to arid channels of closely shepherded official visits and functions, with superabundance of vodka and speeches and dearth of permanent effects.
(h) Beyond this, Soviet official relations will take what might be called “correct” course with individual foreign governments, with great stress being laid on prestige of Soviet Union and its representatives and with punctilious attention to protocol as distinct from good manners.
Part 4: Following May Be Said as to What We May Expect by Way of Implementation of Basic Soviet Policies on Unofficial, or Subterranean Plane, i.e. on Plane for Which Soviet Government Accepts no Responsibility
Agencies utilized for promulgation of policies on this plane are following:
1. Inner central core of Communist Parties in other countries. While many of persons who compose this category may also appear and act in unrelated public capacities, they are in reality working closely together as an underground operating directorate of world communism, a concealed Comintern tightly coordinated and directed by Moscow. It is important to remember that this inner core is actually working on underground lines, despite legality of parties with which it is associated.
2. Rank and file of Communist Parties. Note distinction is drawn between those and persons defined in paragraph 1. This distinction has become much sharper in recent years. Whereas formerly foreign Communist Parties represented a curious (and from Moscow’s standpoint often inconvenient) mixture of conspiracy and legitimate activity, now the conspiratorial element has been neatly concentrated in inner circle and ordered underground, while rank and file–no longer even taken into confidence about realities of movement–are thrust forward as bona fide internal partisans of certain political tendencies within their respective countries, genuinely innocent of conspiratorial connection with foreign states. Only in certain countries where communists are numerically strong do they now regularly appear and act as a body. As a rule they are used to penetrate, and to influence or dominate, as case may be, other organizations less likely to be suspected of being tools of Soviet Government, with a view to accomplishing their purposes through [apparent omission] organizations, rather than by direct action as a separate political party.
3. A wide variety of national associations or bodies which can be dominated or influenced by such penetration. These include: labor unions, youth leagues, women’s organizations, racial societies, religious societies, social organizations, cultural groups, liberal magazines, publishing houses, etc.
4. International organizations which can be similarly penetrated through influence over various national components. Labor, youth and women’s organizations are prominent among them. Particular, almost vital importance is attached in this connection to international labor movement. In this, Moscow sees possibility of sidetracking western governments in world affairs and building up international lobby capable of compelling governments to take actions favorable to Soviet interests in various countries and of paralyzing actions disagreeable to USSR
5. Russian Orthodox Church, with its foreign branches, and through it the Eastern Orthodox Church in general.
6. Pan-Slav movement and other movements (Azerbaijan, Armenian, Turcoman, etc.) based on racial groups within Soviet Union.
7. Governments or governing groups willing to lend themselves to Soviet purposes in one degree or another, such as present Bulgarian and Yugoslav Governments, North Persian regime, Chinese Communists, etc. Not only propaganda machines but actual policies of these regimes can be placed extensively at disposal of USSR
It may be expected that component parts of this far-flung apparatus will be utilized in accordance with their individual suitability, as follows:
(a) To undermine general political and strategic potential of major western powers. Efforts will be made in such countries to disrupt national self confidence, to hamstring measures of national defense, to increase social and industrial unrest, to stimulate all forms of disunity. All persons with grievances, whether economic or racial, will be urged to spelt redress not in mediation and compromise, but in defiant violent struggle for destruction of other elements of society. Here poor will be set against rich, black against white, young against old, newcomers against established residents, etc.
(b) On unofficial plane particularly violent efforts will be made to weaken power and influence of Western Powers of [on] colonial backward, or dependent peoples. On this level, no holds will be barred. Mistakes and weaknesses of western colonial administration will be mercilessly exposed and exploited. Liberal opinion in Western countries will be mobilized to weaken colonial policies. Resentment among dependent peoples will be stimulated. And while latter are being encouraged to seek independence of Western Powers, Soviet dominated puppet political machines will be undergoing preparation to take over domestic power in respective colonial areas when independence is achieved.
(c) Where individual governments stand in path of Soviet purposes pressure will be brought for their removal from office. This can happen where governments directly oppose Soviet foreign policy aims (Turkey, Iran), where they seal their territories off against Communist penetration (Switzerland, Portugal), or where they compete too strongly, like Labor Government in England, for moral domination among elements which it is important for Communists to dominate. (Sometimes, two of these elements are present in a single case. Then Communist opposition becomes particularly shrill and savage. [)]
(d) In foreign countries Communists will, as a rule, work toward destruction of all forms of personal independence, economic, political or moral. Their system can handle only individuals who have been brought into complete dependence on higher power. Thus, persons who are financially independent–such as individual businessmen, estate owners, successful farmers, artisans and all those who exercise local leadership or have local prestige, such as popular local clergymen or political figures, are anathema. It is not by chance that even in USSR local officials are kept constantly on move from one job to another, to prevent their taking root.
(e) Everything possible will be done to set major Western Powers against each other. Anti-British talk will be plugged among Americans, anti-American talk among British. Continentals, including Germans, will be taught to abhor both Anglo-Saxon powers. Where suspicions exist, they will be fanned; where not, ignited. No effort will be spared to discredit and combat all efforts which threaten to lead to any sort of unity or cohesion among other [apparent omission] from which Russia might be excluded. Thus, all forms of international organization not amenable to Communist penetration and control, whether it be the Catholic [apparent omission] international economic concerns, or the international fraternity of royalty and aristocracy, must expect to find themselves under fire from many, and often [apparent omission].
(f) In general, all Soviet efforts on unofficial international plane will be negative and destructive in character, designed to tear down sources of strength beyond reach of Soviet control. This is only in line with basic Soviet instinct that there can be no compromise with rival power and that constructive work can start only when Communist power is doming But behind all this will be applied insistent, unceasing pressure for penetration and command of key positions in administration and especially in police apparatus of foreign countries. The Soviet regime is a police regime par excellence, reared in the dim half world of Tsarist police intrigue, accustomed to think primarily in terms of police power. This should never be lost sight of in ganging Soviet motives.
Part 5: [Practical Deductions From Standpoint of US Policy]
In summary, we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US there can be no permanent modus vivendi that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state be broken, if Soviet power is to be secure. This political force has complete power of disposition over energies of one of world’s greatest peoples and resources of world’s richest national territory, and is borne along by deep and powerful currents of Russian nationalism. In addition, it has an elaborate and far flung apparatus for exertion of its influence in other countries, an apparatus of amazing flexibility and versatility, managed by people whose experience and skill in underground methods are presumably without parallel in history. Finally, it is seemingly inaccessible to considerations of reality in its basic reactions. For it, the vast fund of objective fact about human society is not, as with us, the measure against which outlook is constantly being tested and re-formed, but a grab bag from which individual items are selected arbitrarily and tendenciously to bolster an outlook already preconceived. This is admittedly not a pleasant picture. Problem of how to cope with this force in [is] undoubtedly greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face. It should be point of departure from which our political general staff work at present juncture should proceed. It should be approached with same thoroughness and care as solution of major strategic problem in war, and if necessary, with no smaller outlay in planning effort. I cannot attempt to suggest all answers here. But I would like to record my conviction that problem is within our power to solve–and that without recourse to any general military conflict.. And in support of this conviction there are certain observations of a more encouraging nature I should like to make:
(1) Soviet power, unlike that of Hitlerite Germany, is neither schematic nor adventunstic. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw–and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns.
(2) Gauged against Western World as a whole, Soviets are still by far the weaker force. Thus, their success will really depend on degree of cohesion, firmness and vigor which Western World can muster. And this is factor which it is within our power to influence.
(3) Success of Soviet system, as form of internal power, is not yet finally proven. It has yet to be demonstrated that it can survive supreme test of successive transfer of power from one individual or group to another. Lenin’s death was first such transfer, and its effects wracked Soviet state for 15 years. After Stalin’s death or retirement will be second. But even this will not be final test. Soviet internal system will now be subjected, by virtue of recent territorial expansions, to series of additional strains which once proved severe tax on Tsardom. We here are convinced that never since termination of civil war have mass of Russian people been emotionally farther removed from doctrines of Communist Party than they are today. In Russia, party has now become a great and–for the moment–highly successful apparatus of dictatorial administration, but it has ceased to be a source of emotional inspiration. Thus, internal soundness and permanence of movement need not yet be regarded as assured.
(4) All Soviet propaganda beyond Soviet security sphere is basically negative and destructive. It should therefore be relatively easy to combat it by any intelligent and really constructive program.
For those reasons I think we may approach calmly and with good heart problem of how to deal with Russia. As to how this approach should be made, I only wish to advance, by way of conclusion, following comments:
(1) Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing. We must study it with same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which doctor studies unruly and unreasonable individual.
(2) We must see that our public is educated to realities of Russian situation. I cannot over-emphasize importance of this. Press cannot do this alone. It must be done mainly by Government, which is necessarily more experienced and better informed on practical problems involved. In this we need not be deterred by [ugliness?] of picture. I am convinced that there would be far less hysterical anti-Sovietism in our country today if realities of this situation were better understood by our people. There is nothing as dangerous or as terrifying as the unknown. It may also be argued that to reveal more information on our difficulties with Russia would reflect unfavorably on Russian-American relations. I feel that if there is any real risk here involved, it is one which we should have courage to face, and sooner the better. But I cannot see what we would be risking. Our stake in this country, even coming on heels of tremendous demonstrations of our friendship for Russian people, is remarkably small. We have here no investments to guard, no actual trade to lose, virtually no citizens to protect, few cultural contacts to preserve. Our only stake lies in what we hope rather than what we have; and I am convinced we have better chance of realizing those hopes if our public is enlightened and if our dealings with Russians are placed entirely on realistic and matter-of-fact basis.
(3) Much depends on health and vigor of our own society. World communism is like malignant parasite which feeds only on diseased tissue. This is point at which domestic and foreign policies meets Every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society, to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow worth a thousand diplomatic notes and joint communiqués. If we cannot abandon fatalism and indifference in face of deficiencies of our own society, Moscow will profit–Moscow cannot help profiting by them in its foreign policies.
(4) We must formulate and put forward for other nations a much more positive and constructive picture of sort of world we would like to see than we have put forward in past. It is not enough to urge people to develop political processes similar to our own. Many foreign peoples, in Europe at least, are tired and frightened by experiences of past, and are less interested in abstract freedom than in security. They are seeking guidance rather than responsibilities. We should be better able than Russians to give them this. And unless we do, Russians certainly will.
(5) Finally we must have courage and self-confidence to cling to our own methods and conceptions of human society. After Al, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.
KENNAN
800.00B International Red Day/2 – 2546: Airgram
* After Kennan’s death his diaries were curated, edited, and posthumously published. Much was made of Kennan’s seeming anti-Semitism and the retrograde socio-political nature of some of his other beliefs. I think that it is important to recognize that Kennan was a product of a specific time and place – one that was much, much less tolerant of ethnic and religious minorities. I think it is also important to separate the professional Kennan from the personal one; his important diplomatic work in the US Foreign Service from his personal beliefs.
RobertDSC-iPad Mini
Incredible work, Adam. Thank you.
redshirt
And…?
raven
Rachel playing the entire Michelle Obama’s speech.
liberal
George Kennan? The same guy whose Wikipedia page says this?
lgerard
Nothing to investigate here
say the House of Representatives
Mary G
I’m going to try to read that later, but I have a general question now for you, Adam, and apologize if the long telegram answers it. Why does this meddling seem so incompetent? They tweet Wikileaks stuff before WL releases it. Any idiot could avoid that. Is it that they want to rub America’s face in it?
jl
” the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign. ”
That is one of the most gentlemanly non-denials denials I have ever read. I don’t think Larry effing King is a Russian agent just because RT happens to pick up a lot of cast-offs from US TV, and his show is one of them. But, as I mentioned before in comments, my folks were quite puzzled by how the ‘news’ they heard on RT didn’t quite match up with BBC, and similar places.
We ended up watching a cute round table where the gracious, and open minded (well at least as open minded as the Big Boss hisself can be) Vlad had a roundtable discussion with the RT reporters. Was interesting, and enlightening in terms of how Putin thinks. Sure didn’t sound like he was hedging or fudging when he went off on what he thought was misguided and dangerously aggressive US foreign policy. (Edit: I actually agreed with about 20 or 30 percent of his critique, but so what? Putin would one of the last world leaders I would ask advice on how to fix things).
So, hey, I’ll give Putin credit, maybe being a new propaganda organ was not intended. But what difference does that supposed original intention make about what it does? What it does, in the news segments, is very often pro-Russian propaganda. Facty propaganda, I haven’t seen anything as silly on it as what you see on Fox News. And the pundits are not as brain dead as what you usually see on US corporate news. But I think the news and news commentary is definitely propaganda.
Best you can say for it is that they are quite open about what it is.
Adam L Silverman
@liberal: Yep, the same one. He was a very interesting character.
Gin & Tonic
@liberal: George Kennan’s influence on a generation of US-USSR relations cannot be overstated. For better or worse, he was hugely influential.
Schlemazel
@jl:
Bob? Is that you?
Gin & Tonic
@jl:
Complete and utter horseshit.
JPL
Earlier today Jim Acosta was talking about the folks at Trump’s rallies become more aggressive towards the media.
This was retweeted by him
jl
@Schlemazel: BiP manifests himself in many ways.
@Gin & Tonic: Yes of course what Putin said about intentions is horseshit. There was quite a bit of snark in my comment. I won’t bother responding to people who can’t see the snark.
redshirt
@JPL: I’m sure this will work out well for the Trump campaign.
jl
@Schlemazel: Or maybe the fact that I do not think Larry effing King is a devious Russian spy the give away that I am BiP. That must be it. Sorry, I gave the game away.
Edit: I better run and cash that check from Vlad quick.
PhoenixRising
Adam, I’m so old that when I was assigned this material the first time, George Kennan was still X.
Thanks for recalling it.
Adam L Silverman
@Mary G: The two aren’t really related. I put the Long Telegram in because I think its an excellent read aside from the events that are ongoing. As to your question: I think there are three reasons that this stuff seems so amateurish. The first is there is a desperate need to constantly chase the news cycle that is the Trump campaign. So in the space of about 6 hours you have five or six news reports of women all telling similar stories, independent of each other, about being harassed and/or assaulted by Trump. So now you’ve got to move the release up, whether you’re ready or not to do so and whether your assets (WL) is ready to or not, in order to try to muddy the waters in the ongoing news coverage. The second is that, and perhaps it explains why Putin is restructuring Russia’s intelligence community http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12988138/vladimir-putin-kgb-intelligence-agencies-russia, the economic crisis has degraded these agencies in way that is not commonly known. The third reason is that the real purpose behind these data dumps, especially as there really isn’t anything really problematic (a practicing Catholic bitching about politically ultra-conservative Catholics is not trashing Catholicism or the Church), is to use the hacks and subsequent releases to eat away at America’s grey zone – its civic culture, the little trust that is left in American institutions; especially the upcoming election. So just getting things out, regardless of how they do it or how amateurishly they do so, suits their purposes.
Adam L Silverman
@PhoenixRising: You’re welcome. Sorry for making you confront your age this evening.
TS
@JPL:
Past time the media gave his rallies the miss. That might let reality hit him and his hate fest where it hurts.
JPL
@TS: If someone from the media is harmed, they will blame the media for causing it. It’s past time, to walk away from coverage.
Enzymer
@raven: @raven: Michele’s speech was magnificent. I think that she is in someways our “La passionara”. When the stakes are high she comes through with logic & emotion fused in moral outrage. I’ll miss her as First Lady, though I know she has distaste for electoral politics, can we carve out an Eleanor Roosevelt role as moral leader? Eleanor is the First Lady I see as most similar to Michele. Perhaps in10 years as UN Secretary General.
Comrade Scrutinizer
Adam, I get a little lost in this. I agree that Keenan’s dispatch gives a good snapshot of the conditions existing between the USA and the USSR in the immediate post-partum period, particularly in part 5 of the telegram. However, almost 70 years stand between the telegram and the present. Granted that Putin was KGB and schooled in the Soviet system, the state that he runs is quite a bit different from Stalin’s USSR. I don’t pretend to be a subject matter expert on Russia and Russian desire hegemony, which seems to have been a constant for a long time, regardless of the form of government, but I’m having some trouble tying this post together.
Help?
jl
And thanks to Adam for the news about the silly RT ‘scoop’, if you can call the plant of a botched gotcha story as part of a clumsy and inept disinformation campaign a ‘scoop’. I am not a lawyer, but I do believe strong cases can be made from circumstantial evidence.
Russia either feeding stuff directly to Trump campaign, or feeding it white nationalist nutcase outlets knowing Trump campaign will eat it up.
Which is worse, I do not claim to know.
Adam L Silverman
@TS: I watched his West Palm Beach rally this afternoon and fully expected that some of the crowd were going to invade the press pen and start smacking reporters around. I’m glad it didn’t happen, but it would not surprise me if/when it does.
Adam L Silverman
@raven: I watched that this afternoon too. That was one of the best speeches, on any topic, I’ve ever seen/heard.
japa21
@Adam L Silverman: True that what is being released is ,in the normal course of events relatively innocuous and would, under normal circumstances require major leaps to make them anything to be concerned about. However, the media is still trying to keep this a balanced election. They really can’t avoid going after Trump on the sexual aggression language, but there is not a lot on the Russia angle.
Andd the local channel in Chicago, WGN channel 9, described the specific email you referred to as mocking Catholicism. And that is what people hear.
And that is how it eats away at the grey zone.
TS
@Enzymer: Sec General cannot come from the country of permanent members of the security council – so Michelle is not eligible. There was talk about Pres Obama getting the job – same issue.
She will have her place in history in other areas.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Adam L Silverman: her husband was pretty good tonight too, pointing out that Trump is the logical end of what Republicans have been doing for twenty years– obstructionism, hysteric rhetoric, hypocrisy on family values. Republicans are in full “both sides” mode, how sad that President Obama is lowering himself to Trump’s level.
ASSHOLES.
that was an accidental cap lock, but I decided to leave to
ETA: O’Donnell doing one the clips of everything openings to his show, Newton Leroy “can’t make sense” of the fact that Trump isn’t listening to him
Schlemazel
@jl:
Or it just may be that Larry serves as a beard. He draws in an audience Vlad would like to reach while pretending to be fair and balanced but the news is all pro Russian propaganda. That fits what I have seen from RT.
Comrade Scrutinizer
@Schlemazel: Like Fox News?
jl
@japa21: I’ve heard stories about Russian interference, but never connected to the suspect Wikileaks info dumps. And never a mention that there is very good evidence that the sources for Wikileaks info dumps have tampered with previous releases. That would get in the way of their breathless reporting that there is embarrassing stuff in the leaked emails. What exactly, they never say.
Edit: I think there is some interesting stuff in the leaked emails, but it is CNN possibly leaking townhall questions. Can’t really be blamed on HRC, and whether that is CNN corruption or incompetence (would either be surprising?) is impossible to tell. I can see why the media doesn’t want to talk about that.
Adam L Silverman
@Comrade Scrutinizer: My point in posting the Long Telegram is the larger takeaway that Kennan wants the reader to have: in order to understand the problem set, and what to do about the problem set, you must understand the people you’re dealing with. A significant amount of the Long Telegram is Kennan trying to explain Russians, their wants, needs, and expectations, to the decision makers back in DC that weren’t subject matter experts on Russia or the Russians. Another reason I posted it is that Putin is Putin partially because of the structures and institutions and culture that Kennan is describing in his cable.
lamh36
Hey Adam, are you on twitter?
Just wondering…
Chris T.
“We didn’t intend this to be a propaganda arm. Instead, we found that it was ideal to be a propaganda arm, and took it over and turned it into a propaganda arm. But we didn’t intend it to be one initially!”
ETA: “It was wearing a low cut dress! It’s not our fault our hands became like an octopus…” (to fuse some related threads together)
Adam L Silverman
@japa21: No argument here. I watched Tweety tried to deal with it earlier tonight and he tried to get his dander up (for appearances sake), but couldn’t quite pull it off.
TS
@Adam L Silverman: It is getting so close to “then they came for me”.
Adam L Silverman
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I just finished watching the President’s remarks in Ohio – I had DVRed them while I was drafting the post. It was also a very good speech.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Adam L Silverman: Ana Marie Cox, who I’m liking more lately: “Now would be a good time for Melania Trump to plagiarize Michelle Obama”
Miss Bianca
A lot to unpack in the Long Telegram, and a lot of still seems relevant. I guess I remain a bit mystified (being a bear of very little brain) as to what, Adam,it signifies as a guide to understanding post-Soviet Russian intentions toward the West in general and the US in particular. Since we’re not talking a “war between socialism and capitalism” anymore as the justification for this type of rat-fuckery, just what is Putin hoping to gain? A general weakening of Western political structures leading to…what? Is post-Soviet Russia going to export “white Russian” fascistic ideology where before it was trying to export Soviet-style communism? To what ultimate end? Would the break-up of the USSR have been such a psychologically wounding phenomenon for those who were high up in its power structure that this is some sort of revenge thing? Or is it a more pragmatic attempt to keep western democracies tied up fighting the lunatic/fascistic fringe in their own countries so that Russia can start expanding its own version of Lebensraum?
lamh36
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: right…i tweeted that Melania was listening to FLOTUS speech like this:
Melania watching FLOTUS speech
jl
@Schlemazel: I’m just not that bothered by RT, since it is quite open about what it does. Certainly more than Fox News. Some of the people they have picked up, like King, have such massive egos, they will take any chance to stay on air.
I don’t see much point in having a beard if you are saying out loud what is behind the beard. I guess weak minded old people, like Fox News viewers, yes, it could be called misleading. I don’t have much opinion on it, to be honest. But I did make a point of getting my folks to watch the Putin round table and explained to them he was the big boss. They could figure out themselves why the RT news, especially wrt to Europe sounded so different from the BBC after that.
Adam L Silverman
@jl: You should be paying attention to Malcolm Nance:
https://twitter.com/cindysaine/status/786674030392832001
Mary G
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks, Adam. Seems like he is having trouble restoring Russia to its former glory, which is good. The Vox article was helpful.
jl
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks for cheering me up. I’ll read it after I have a stiff drink.
Adam L Silverman
@lamh36: No – I think twitter is useful for breaking news (even if first reports are not always reliable), emergency updates, and (possibly) letting your friends (and anyone else following you) know you went to a different restaurant. And that’s about it. I understand tweetstorms and have seen some good ones – like the Sarah Posner one I linked to last week, but over all I think its not really useful or helpful.
Villago Delenda Est
@TS: The only media at Drumpfenrallies will eventually be the correspondents of
Der StürmerBreitbart.I’m shocked they haven’t just gone full NSDAP and handed out armbands.
Villago Delenda Est
@Adam L Silverman: It’s a good way to let off steam. Or destroy your chances to be President, ever.
scav
C&L’s got a short clip of Obama (version POTUS) for those lacking DVRs and eager for a taste.
And, as for posting early — Isn’t this the same team that announced Pence had won the debate before it occurred? They’ve got a defective Tardis.
Villago Delenda Est
@Miss Bianca: He wants to reestablish the borders of the Russian Empire to what Stalin established in the 40’s.
Tee
Quick question Adam, if you know or have heard any connection to the Trump solicitation emails and any of our allies experiences with governmental or political organizations having data breach similar to the DNC back?
Lyrebird
@japa21: This probably won’t reach all those listeners, but I enjoyed reading ThinkProgress’ coverage of the email author’s response. He’s a Catholic himself — sounds somewhat serious about his faith, too.
I wonder if those nuns still have their bus, from back when Ryan was trying for Veep?
Adam L Silverman
@TS: Yes, but, and I wrote something about this in a comment a week or so ago, things will not go that way again. It isn’t just that America is awash in firearms – if the government ever actually turned on the citizenry or parts thereof and the military went along with it, then those wouldn’t help much. I don’t care how many AR pattern rifles you’ve hoarded, they’re not going to do you much good against an F16 Fighting Falcon! Where I think things won’t go the same way is that we’ve seen this happen before and in that case there are enough Americans that are forewarned, which means they (we) are forearmed. Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Catholic Americans (the amount of anti-Catholic stuff showing up in comment threads on right wing political, economic, social, news media, and other sites is amazing), African Americans, Latino/Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, LGBTQ Americans regardless of religion or ethnicity, and some white, Protestant Americans too all know what is going down. It is this awareness that will make it very, very hard for it to happen here.
TS
@Villago Delenda Est: I’m disgusted that it has taken the media this long to realize what is going on at Trump rallies. They have let themselves be herded into a corner – not a safe place when confrontation is going to occur.
Gin & Tonic
@Miss Bianca:
End-stage USSR was largely a gerontocracy, and it broke up 25 years ago, so there are very few (if any) people left “high up in power” who were there then.
I believe Putin believes in a zero-sum game, and weakening Western institutions means strengthening Russia, whether it’s by turning Syria into a hellhole and exporting refugees that Europe can’t handle, funding ultra-right nationalists which will weaken or destabilize governments in Europe, carving off portions of Ukraine and watching for (non)-response from the West, ultimately (IMO) testing the limits of Article 5. If I’m the president of Estonia, you bet I’m nervous.
Having a useful idiot like Trump as POTUS would certainly be beneficial.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: Post Soviet Russia never made it through its transition to liberal democratic state and society. This is not surprising – almost no transition works the first time, which is why all the color revolutions and the various Arab Springs (not to mention France, which is on the Fifth Republic and the US, which went through a 2nd founding in the late 1780s/early 1790s and the Great Rebellion now D/B/A as the Civil war and the New Deal and the Civil Rights period) have hit a stalling point, reversed course, gone a different and often tyrannical way. So the institutions, structures, and culture that Kennan is describing, that then endured for another 50 years or so, were never fully reworked. To a certain extant Russia is unreconstructed from the Soviet Union, or, perhaps, a better understanding is only partially reconstructed from the Soviet Union. And Putin is likely not reconstructed at all.
Lyrebird
@PhoenixRising: @Adam L Silverman: Interesting… While I doubt that I’d’ve been pals with Mr. X, had I been around in his era, and I find the wording in 3) difficult, I’m impressed by 4) and 5) and saddened by how little we have learned, it seems.
Like how we’ve responded to Hezbollah, not factoring in how well they’ve established themselves as protector of the disadvantaged in their areas. Not that I see them as on much of any moral high ground — sfaik the areas they have bombed in Israel have super-high Muslim populations, for instance, not going for brotherhood in faith or anything — but I regret the ways in which it seems that US foreign policy still seems to be learning those later lessons from the telegram.
Adam L Silverman
@Tee: I have not.
Renie
OT: Adam, what is your view on Yemen? Do you think we are headed into heavier involvement there?
Adam L Silverman
@Lyrebird: I’ve had the Hezbullah discussion, as well as the Sadrist Organization (Office of the Martyr Sadr and Jaish al Mehdi) and the Hamas variants, with senior uniformed and civilian officials many times. Explaining that because of how we classify the entire organization we hamstring our actual ability to go in and make the social movement (political party, social services, economic services, educational services, medical services) components legit, build them up, and separate them from their armed, military/militia wings.
I’m not endorsing any of these groups, but rather arguing that our policy and strategy – no matter how logical and consistent given how the US interacts with non-state actors that engage in terrorism and low intensity warfare – actually denies us the tools to try to turn a threat into a challenge and a challenge into an opportunity.
NotMax
Downward slope of of foreign policy expertise down to Condi Rice, Russia expert could be graphed..
Adam L Silverman
@Renie: Only if some knucklehead shoots an anti-ship missile at one of our ships. From the reporting I’ve seen the President, as well as some members of Congress and officials at the DOD, are very, very concerned about what is happening given our military sales to Saudi. I’ve been meaning to do a Yemen post, as well as a Syrian ceasefire breakdown post, but events keep getting in the way.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
our not too long national nightmare will soon be over
that oughta do it!
TS
@Adam L Silverman: I do agree with what you are saying, but the months between June & October have shaken me with the thought that “Trump could win this” – with the media trying so hard to say “both sides”, with people giving the GOP nominee kudos because he can stand up for 90 minutes and not dribble. He physically stalked Hillary around the stage at the last debate – confirming what he & many others have said about his views on women, highlighting the truths that were revealed just 2 days prior – and still too many GOP pundits, politicians and media were giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Michelle Obama has so described what I & so many women have been thinking – fortunately the outrage has calmed the panic & the only thing remaining is how low will he go.
And for the topic of the thread – it is truth that the behavior of the nominee has pushed everything else about the campaign into the background – which is not such a good idea considering that Russia hacking the dnc and releasing emails to support the GOP nominee SHOULD be a major concern in itself
Renie
@Adam L Silverman: Your insights are always fascinating; thanks for answering
Lyrebird
@Adam L Silverman: Preach! (been watching the FLOTUS speech to restore my faith in humanity)
Other than not telling the busybodies in Congress to go mind their own business instead of lying re: his consensual affairs, the main thing I would still criticize WJC for as President was for bombing the Sudan w/o working with allies or anything… Like, if we want to reduce terrorism and such, let’s avoid actively helping them recruit!
No doubt yer Hezb. and other memos were long after that, but anyhow I hope yer bosses listen harder next time!
David S
seems a good description of Trump’s campaign.
NotMax
@Adam L. Silverman
Yemen situation is terribly complex, but any discussion has to mention the backstory of the Houthis being marginalized in the hinterlands of the north, fomenting unrest and repeatedly being clamped down on by the government for many, many years, going back at least to the unification of the two Yemens. (Shaky analogy, but Bantustans is what comes to mind without further mulling for a more precise term.)
Also their longstanding objections to Wahhabism as well as doctrinal chasms separating them from Iranian Shiism.
Adam L Silverman
@TS: Anything is possible. Unless something really bizarre that no one can see or hear or discern is actually going on, it becomes less and less probable that he will be elected. I do not, however, think he will go away. I expect increases in sporadic, stochastic violence and terrorism (as it will be politically driven) as we approach election day. I fully expect that he will not concede in any normal/traditional sense if at all. And I fully expect an uptick in stochastic violence and terrorism as a result. It is important to remember, however, that while Trump’s supporters may be a majority (slim or large is, I think, still not fully clear) within the GOP base plus a bunch of white supremacists, neo-NAZIs, and the alt-right folks that are all overlapping of each other, they do not make up a majority of Americans. They barely make up a plurality of Americans. We are forewarned, we are forearmed. And despite some uncomfortable parallels, this is not Germany in the 1930s or Italy in the 1930s or France in the 1930s or Chile and Argentina in the1960s and 1970s.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
are we sure he’s not Andy Kaufman doing some kind of elaborate, long form parody act? In fact, if he never admits to being Andy Kaufman, won’t that just prove that he is Andy Kaufman?
Adam L Silverman
@NotMax: Agree on all and without a doubt.
Patricia Kayden
@JPL: Why don’t they frigging stop covering his dang rallies then? Sick of them. They barely cover Secretary Clinton’s rallies.
Adam L Silverman
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Ask him to say: Thank you very much!
Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again)
@liberal:
Stopping a genocide>Improving relations with an outside party
Srv
But honestly, I’m talking out of my ass.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Liz Mair would watch her enemies burn alive with a total lack of emotion or feeling, no pity, no joy, no nothing. Just see it as something that needs to happen and is happening.
This I believe.
Matt McIrvin
@Adam L Silverman: The thing that’s dismaying me now is people getting excited about some oddball pairwise-head-to-head poll conducted by some Libertarian organization that’s meant to demonstrate that Gary Johnson is totally a viable candidate who is stronger against Trump than Hillary. At this point, this kind of thing can only erode Clinton’s lead.
Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again)
@jl:
Like Thom Hartmann, RT gives him a voice. He’s likes that voice. He’s a bit of a narcissist.
Matt McIrvin
@Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again): Well, not if the result is global nuclear war. That’s kind of an overriding concern.
GregB
SRV. Did you mean to say it’s ‘not’ in the Houthi’s best interest?
It seems to me this is one of those easily fudged actions to conitinue US involvement. Especially after things got a little wobbly after that brutal Saudi air raid that killed lots of civilians.
It makes as much sense as Syria using chemical weapons after Pres. O. called them a red line.
By and large in the regional tug of war I am more inclined to be sympathetic to Iran and their allies than the Saudi’s and their allies.
I think Putin is an authoritarian chooch but I also think the US policies of constantly trying push NATO and weaponry to their border is foolish.
Adam L Silverman
@Matt McIrvin: I haven’t seen anything about that.
JanieM
@Adam L Silverman:
Adam, could you explain what you mean by that? “Plurality” in relation to what other groups?
Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again)
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
Nope. Like the Tsar’s, all of these assholes who followed them in power have been autocrats firstand foremost.
Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again)
@Matt McIrvin:
Was it?
Patricia Kayden
@shomi: If you weren’t so confrontational, you’d actually be funny. I’m sure you understand why some people are frightened by the current political atmosphere — especially those living in redder states.
This will soon pass.
JGabriel
@TS:
I agree with the sentiment, but it’s probably not possible. It’s not discussed much, but press pools for the President, and Presidential candidates, are, in part, assassination watches. They are there so they can rapidly report if something happens to the President (or candidate). With that motivation in mind, it’s difficult for the media to cut off the press pool, for fear that something reportable might happen while they’re not watching.
Mary G
I hope you will do a Yemen post at some point, Adam. I asked you about it a while ago because Daniel Larison at the American Conservative has been really scathing about our helping the Saudis starve the civilians there for a long time now.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
and the Shark-Eyed Liz Mair confirms a theory I’ve had for a while– A lot of the Republicans who say they’re voting for Trump admit privately they’re going to vote for Clinton (I don’t say it with approval, but McCain is one of those)
TS
@Adam L Silverman: I much appreciate your responses, many thanks
Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again)
@efgoldman:
RT’s big amongst the Bernouts, Steinbackers and other leftie conspiracy theorists. It’s up there with Democracy Now as a most valued news source.
Adam L Silverman
@JanieM: So if roughly 45% or so of Americans are either registered Republicans or are Independents/No Affiliation that vote Republican and Trump has the dedicated/committed support of 55 to 65% or so of them, that’s a majority of Republicans/votes Republicans. But its just a plurality of Americans (around 25 to 40% depending on how high Trump’s support actually is among registered Republicans/Independents that vote Republican) – they don’t get close to, let alone cross over into, majority of the citizenry territory.
Matt McIrvin
@Adam L Silverman: I guess it was actually more of an anti-major-party organization. Approving quotes from Jill Stein there too.
p.a.
BinP has been quiet, but he’s fine: visual evidence at my linkee. first item there.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Is Hartmann affiliated with RT? I find him impossible to listen to. If he reads that comment, his response will be “I wrote a book about how hard it is to listen to me”
Sm*t Cl*de
@Villago Delenda Est:
This is the Trump campaign. They will expect followers to buy them.
TS
@JGabriel: I see no reason why the press pool for the GOP nominee cannot be reduced to one reporter, one camera. I understand but will never agree with the gaggle that follows the President – no-one wants to miss an assassination – which in itself is horrific. No other country on the planet has such a group of hanger ons following their leader every step he takes. I find it repulsive – but just my opinion.
mike in dc
So, I keep hearing that there’s a couple stories about to drop in the next few days to a week that are “worse” than the Access Hollywood tape. Any semi-informed guesses about the nature/subject of such stories? I guess the possibilities are :
1) some even worse sexual comments on tape
2) racist comments on tape
3) clearer evidence of financial shenanigans(like, criminally actionable level evidence)
4) clearer evidence of coordination with Russia/Trump’s ties to them
5) (more) credible accusations of sexual assault
Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again)
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Yeah, he’s been there for quite a while….Lemme look…Since 2010.
Adam L Silverman
@Mary G: I’m working on it… Part of the problem we have is that the Nixon Administration signed a secret agreement with the Saudis in the early 1970s that kind of gets in our way.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret
I highly recommend the whole article.
PPCLI
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Kristol’s forthcoming plan: A Sarah Palin/Dan Quayle write-in ticket can turn the election around!
Adam L Silverman
@TS: You’re welcome. We’ve got your back.
Jeffro
Kinda OT but I would have Michael Gerson over for dinner, even with my kids present…this is the kind of stuff they hear from me on a regular basis, after all.
Adam L Silverman
@Matt McIrvin: I just ran back through the leaks and looked at the actual poll. Other than having it ascribed to the “Johnson/Weld campaign” it is unclear who did the poll. One standalone survey with no way to vet the ultimate source – who did the poll – means I can’t say much other than I wouldn’t cite it.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again): I remember when Al Franken left Air America (whatever happened to him, anyway?) there was a minor scandal in progressive talk radio, which fifteen or so people then still might become something, about whether Hartmann or Schultz would get his time slot. Now they’re both working for RT. Funny old world
Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again)
@efgoldman:
Certainly. They do nothing other than add to the cognitive dissonance.
Baud
@efgoldman: I thought we were avant garde.
Pest Bog Mummy, Frakensteinbeck
@Adam L Silverman:
While I do expect an uptick, I believe it will be so small that most Americans will not notice it. Attempted violence against Hillary herself is my only serious worry. Regardless of their rhetoric, the conservative fascist movement is not built on the necessary paramilitary base. It strokes a mindset, not of determined rebellion, but of bullying cowardice. Trump is a perfect example of his followers. He screams and yells about being cheated. He treats women and minorities badly. He attacks the weak. He loves to proclaim how strong and brave he is. However, he is disorganized, ineffectual, and retreats from every confrontation where he does not believe he has overwhelming power. The ‘101st chairborn’ line describes not just their foreign policy, but their attitude towards domestic rebellion. There may be an uptick in domestic abuse, overt public use of racist epithets, police abuse of minorities (hard to track), and an occasional small-scale terrorist event. There will be nothing coming even close to endangering the operating peace of the United States. If absolutely nothing else, disorganization will defeat them. The militias, the gun-fondlers, the neo-Nazis, they are arrogant, hate each other, and incapable of acting in greater than small groups without turning on their own. Trump is offering no fix for that.
Miss Bianca
@Gin & Tonic: Thanks, for that cogent (tho’ certainly far from comforting!) theorizing. Helps me out immensely in trying to make sense of it all.
@Adam L Silverman: And thanks to you as well. So…in a very real sense, we’ve got, if not “business as usual”, a sort of “we don’t know any other way to relate to the world except what we had”. And, of course, come to that, when the ’17 revolution came, what power structures did Russian revolutionaries understand? Authoritarian and paranoid ones (not that they didn’t have reason to be paranoid, but…) that replicated a lot of what was worst about the Russian monarchical system.
JGabriel
@TS: Fair enough. I don’t disagree.
Jeffro
@Jeffro: Meanwhile, Krauthammer manages to reach the right conclusion through beyond-spurious means…and no, he can’t come over for dinner.
Charles, the Obama administration has been outstanding, restrained, nearly scandal-free, and dare I say almost virtuous about not abusing the powers of its offices and Cabinet departments. No need to pretend Trump is proposing to sink to, then go well beyond, some supposed Obama-esque abuse of power.
Pest Bog Mummy, Frakensteinbeck
@efgoldman:
If you object to everything and tell everyone they’re wrong, eventually you’ll find someone who actually was wrong.
Kay
@PPCLI:
You’re sort of idly curious with the Never Trumpers- where did they think this was going? At what point where they planning on stepping in? Sometime after “death panels” and “you lie!” at the SOTU and sucking up to Trump while he turned 70% of the GOP base into Birthers.
This is an Ohio reporter today after a Trump rally:
This is what he does to people. He turns them into assholes. They were behaving somewhat normally prior to his speech.
Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again)
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Air America had a hard time staying on the air with Franken. The thought that his time slot could be filled never crossed my mind.
As far as Hartmann, Schultz and King go, I think they deserve derision for lending legitimacy to an illegitimate journalistic entity.
Comrade Scrutinizer
@Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again): If you bothered to read the next sentence, I mentioned that. The drive for hegemony is one thing, but Russia today is definitely not the USSR of Stalin, nor of Brezhnev, nor even of Gorbachev. It has different priorities, and different methods of achieving them. Is the US the same country now as it was during Truman’s presidency? My point was that, while Keenan’s telegram has some general relevance to today’s US-Russia interaction, I don’t see much relevance to specific issues.
Pest Bog Mummy, Frakensteinbeck
@Kay:
They went looking for someone who would give them permission to be assholes.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: you have mail
GregB
@mike in dc:
If there are any racist comments it will written off as salty cloakroom talk
Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again)
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
So now you want me to tell you that you’re a genius? Russia is still corrupt as all fuck, has gangsters in positions of power, and is (through their actions you shall know them) still trying to rebuild their empire. Ask Ukranians and Georgians about that lat part. Hell, ask Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians and Poles. Putin is a Tsar, de facto if not de jure.
Ken
@mike in dc: I’m kind of hoping for:
6) Paying for an abortion.
Matt McIrvin
@Pest Bog Mummy, Frakensteinbeck:
Not for the most part, though I do wonder about the police unions sometimes. But to really cause trouble beyond what they do already they’d have to attempt something like a coup d’état against municipal governments, and I’m not sure they’re willing to go that far–the National Guard could presumably get involved.
Mary G
@Adam L Silverman: I had a sneaking feeling that oil was in there somewhere, plus money. I’ll add the Bloomberg article to my list, Thanks.
mike in dc
@GregB:
Rumor is he uses the N-word in the Apprentice outtakes. That’s…the cliff, politically. Nobody elected with an R after their name will continue their endorsement if there’s video of that out there. He won’t lose much if any of his hardcore support, but his “soft” support will evaporate, and the undecided will move hard away from him.
PPCLI
@Jeffro: For example, Obama made it clear from the outset that there would be no effort by his administration to criminally investigate the many sins of the Bush administration. For example, the between 5 million and 22 million (depending on who does the estimate) missing emails. Dumped in clear and open defiance of the law. But Obama viewed it as inconsistent with the stability of a democracy to do such a thing, and he emphasized “looking forward”.
Many on the left were frustrated with that. I sure was, though I’m a bit embarrassed in retrospect at the superficiality I showed in thinking so. Obama was right. It endangers the foundations of a democracy to have each administration trying to lock up the last.
The contrast with the “lock-em-up” rodeo over far fewer missing emails could not be starker. But it’s clearly too much for Krauthammer to see that.
Lizzy L
@mike in dc: I want all of this.
My ballot arrived in the mail today. There are 17 statewide propositions on the California ballot. I am a serious voter, I will research every fucking one of them. Oy.
PPCLI
@Kay: Very true. They’ve been consistently and tirelessly stoking the “voter fraud” lie as a cover for rules to suppress turnout among Democratic constituencies. Relentlessly. Where did they think that was going to take us? And why isn’t there a single Republican who has taken a moment to say: “Look, whoever wins this election, it will not have been stolen by voter fraud. That is crazy talk and anyone promoting it is playing with fire.” And the reason no Republican is saying that is because they still think it’s a smart play. They don’t want to admit that Trump is the inevitable end result of their conspiracy mongering; they desperately tell themselves he is a bizarre anomaly.
catclub
No mention of the Serbia apology. That should be a big deal – in a semi rational campaign.
Adam L Silverman
@catclub: Its been contested and Newsweek has updated its article saying that their original Serbian source can not, as of now, validate its information. That’s why I didn’t include it in the post.
mike in dc
@Ken:
I shouldn’t laugh at that, but it would be a lovely wedge for the fundie set.
Mnemosyne
@Lizzy L:
I lean towards the Kevin Drum attitude of Vote No unless there’s a really really good reason not to.
So I’m voting in favor of abolishing the death penalty and against making the death machine run faster. And I’m leaning towards the new tobacco tax just because I’m pissed that the cigarette companies are sending me shiny flyers that lie about it.
Vhh
@Comrade Scrutinizer: As a a Russian speaking scientist with some direct experience actually working in the USSR back in the last century, I can say that the Long Telegram captures a lot that remains important. Please keep in mind during what follows that I don’t hate Russia or Russians, on the contrary. Russia is, like the US, a continental power that does not recognize limits, and has a deep streak of xenophobia. Putin is successful because after the humiliation of the immediate post cold war chaos, he is Making Russia Feel Great Again. Hell, Russia has gone capitalist and is now building megafarms, buying John Deere equipment and Angus breeding stock, exporting wheat and rebuilding the beef herds destroyed during collectivization. Putin is projecting Russian power in the Ukraine, Syria and (soon) the Baltics. The Russian Orthodox Church is behind him 100%, seeking to restore Holy Russia to its rightful place in Christendom with Moscow as the Third Rome that kept the faith after Rome and Constantinople fell to barbarians and Muslims, respectively. One important change since the Long Telegram: Kennan argued that the West could cordon off Stalin’s USSR because they did produce anything the West needed. That is no longer true: Russia is connected to the world thru its oil /gas and weapons industries, its role as a market for high end cars (BMW and Mercedes get most of their profits from Russian sales of most costly models), financial services (both clean and unclean), security software AND the tools to hack it,etc. The can even screw with US elections! We are now interdependent and need to learn to manage that in tune with vital for interests. My guess is that President Hillary’s biggest challenge will be to develop an effective policy towards Russia that keeps the world from blowing itself up. Putin knows that, too but wants Trump as the Useful Idiot in the White House. The sex scandals get the headlines, and thankfully are pulling Trump down, but the survival issues are what is really important. Indeed, Hillary is what stands between us and Armageddon.
Anoniminous
huh
That brought back memories of sitting around discussing “On Thermonuclear War” by Kahn, “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy” by Kissinger, and the absurd Cold War propaganda (both sides.)
Sm*t Cl*de
@Baud:
I thought you were biere de garde.
Aardvark Cheeselog
@Anoniminous:
Hey, I remember those talks!
Miss Bianca
@Aardvark Cheeselog: good times!
RaflW
Sub one word in that sentence, and we have not just Trumpists, but much of the GOP. Golly.
Likewise this
RaflW
@Vhh: Putin … wants Trump as the Useful Idiot in the White House.
Perhaps. The other read I took from the telegram is the idea of Trump being such a disaster president that intra-west infighting goes off the charts. England fighting economically with the EU over Brexit, and Trump playing stomp-foot protectionist-in-chief gives enough global economic destabilization for Russia to have space to rapidly expand it’s sphere of influence.
I don’t think we’d have intra-westernized-capitalist hot wars, but epic trade wars and significant resource skirmishes are not that hard to image. To which I think Russia would react with glee.
3am
@Vhh:
It’s really interesting, but I feel like I’ve oversimplifying or missing something … Putin and the Russian state seem to be very effectively antagonizing the next president, and a generation of American elite. Unless there is a 2nd level of misdirection, it seems like a strategic mistake.