I watched a limited series on Netflix this week called "Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War." It really does a great job contextualizing Putin, the War in Ukraine and what happened to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union through the lens of the development of the nuclear bomb.
Since I have lived most of my 71 years under the threat of nuclear annihilation and I know now that IF Russia had no nuclear bombs THEN Russia would never have invaded Georgia, Crimea or Ukraine and if they had the US and her allies would have responded more aggressively and driven the Russians out.
Our diplomatic approach would not have included looking into Putin's eyes and "seeing his soul" or handing out silly "reset buttons" while Russia was still prosecuting its take over of Georgia.
The whole world sees that by having nuclear arms they can forestall invasions by the United States or anyone else. It is not for nothing that Iran, North Korea and others are desperate to acquire the bomb. Even Ukraine probably regrets having given them up now.
Just like in the Cold War every relationship is being defined by MAD.
And pivotal to the outcomes of Putin's strategy is the election of Trump and the support of the Republican majority in the House and enough votes to stall anything in the Senate. He will no longer have to threaten nuclear war with which he holds the US at bay today. His recapture of the Baltic States will be much easier without NATO and a fractured EU and isolationist UK and the withdrawal of US forces from Europe. The Chinese will simply have to renegotiate their ownership of Taiwan and avoid an armed conflict with the US.
Thanks, Cathy, for this article. However I have noticed that Bulwark writers don't use the term that best fits the far right MAGA ideology such as it is. It is not conservative it is reactionary. By calling these people conservative we simply continue to mislead readers as to the nature of their ideology. Conservatives are on the normal liberal democratic spectrum. Reactionaries are not. As you say conservatives can love America as it is. Reactionaries can only hate America as it actually exists.
A very insightful piece regarding the intellectual right's "hatred" for liberalism. I can only add what I regard as the view from the common person. There, the protestant religious' dominant base of the Southern Baptist Convention and its allies, hates the liberalism of the progressive track of present American culture and public policy as much as it hates Satan (or more?). Certainly the causes are complex, but our process of understanding the conflict from the conservative point of view is instructive.
Great article. The right has changed places with the left over the last hundred years. In the 1920's leftists were all agog about Russian communism, they were called "fellow travellers" for parroting the Kremlin's line. Now we have right wing fellow travellers (same country, different century, different political system - no longer communist, but still totalitarian) We should never forget that the communist left in Weimar Germany refused to ally with German moderates, because Stalin told them not to! That weakened the German democracy and paved the way for Hitler. Then the ultimate coup de grace was the reactionary right in Germany, which invited Hitler to become Chancellor after his Nazi party won a third of the vote. Luckily the left is no longer under the influence of the Russians, but the right is. And American reactionaries are enabling Trump, the same way that German reactionaries enabled Hitler. History repeats itself, and the second time as a farce!
The Right doesn't love Liberalism but it does love Liberty and the "Liberals" of today could learn a lot from the Right. Liberalism today is anything but freedom.
Soviet Unions used to be an inspiration for far-left populists and communists. While Russia is the same today for far-right populists and nationalists.
Because this is an open-comment post, I'm going to take the chance to head off the most useless apologia for autocrats at the path:
A. "Actually the left is the real fascists"
B. "But campus radicals!"
C. "This is just another Russia hoax"
D. "We're only responding to left wing authoritarianism"
E. "What about Democrat cities (defund the police)"
F. "Technically Stacy Abrams is an election denier too"
If you find any of these to be a convenient block to put between the facts and your feelings, just reply with the letter.
I watched a limited series on Netflix this week called "Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War." It really does a great job contextualizing Putin, the War in Ukraine and what happened to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union through the lens of the development of the nuclear bomb.
Since I have lived most of my 71 years under the threat of nuclear annihilation and I know now that IF Russia had no nuclear bombs THEN Russia would never have invaded Georgia, Crimea or Ukraine and if they had the US and her allies would have responded more aggressively and driven the Russians out.
Our diplomatic approach would not have included looking into Putin's eyes and "seeing his soul" or handing out silly "reset buttons" while Russia was still prosecuting its take over of Georgia.
The whole world sees that by having nuclear arms they can forestall invasions by the United States or anyone else. It is not for nothing that Iran, North Korea and others are desperate to acquire the bomb. Even Ukraine probably regrets having given them up now.
Just like in the Cold War every relationship is being defined by MAD.
And pivotal to the outcomes of Putin's strategy is the election of Trump and the support of the Republican majority in the House and enough votes to stall anything in the Senate. He will no longer have to threaten nuclear war with which he holds the US at bay today. His recapture of the Baltic States will be much easier without NATO and a fractured EU and isolationist UK and the withdrawal of US forces from Europe. The Chinese will simply have to renegotiate their ownership of Taiwan and avoid an armed conflict with the US.
Thanks, Cathy, for this article. However I have noticed that Bulwark writers don't use the term that best fits the far right MAGA ideology such as it is. It is not conservative it is reactionary. By calling these people conservative we simply continue to mislead readers as to the nature of their ideology. Conservatives are on the normal liberal democratic spectrum. Reactionaries are not. As you say conservatives can love America as it is. Reactionaries can only hate America as it actually exists.
A very insightful piece regarding the intellectual right's "hatred" for liberalism. I can only add what I regard as the view from the common person. There, the protestant religious' dominant base of the Southern Baptist Convention and its allies, hates the liberalism of the progressive track of present American culture and public policy as much as it hates Satan (or more?). Certainly the causes are complex, but our process of understanding the conflict from the conservative point of view is instructive.
Great article. The right has changed places with the left over the last hundred years. In the 1920's leftists were all agog about Russian communism, they were called "fellow travellers" for parroting the Kremlin's line. Now we have right wing fellow travellers (same country, different century, different political system - no longer communist, but still totalitarian) We should never forget that the communist left in Weimar Germany refused to ally with German moderates, because Stalin told them not to! That weakened the German democracy and paved the way for Hitler. Then the ultimate coup de grace was the reactionary right in Germany, which invited Hitler to become Chancellor after his Nazi party won a third of the vote. Luckily the left is no longer under the influence of the Russians, but the right is. And American reactionaries are enabling Trump, the same way that German reactionaries enabled Hitler. History repeats itself, and the second time as a farce!
There is only a small fringe element of Putin admirers on the right. In contrast, Hamas has a huge following that is protecting them on the left.
The Right doesn't love Liberalism but it does love Liberty and the "Liberals" of today could learn a lot from the Right. Liberalism today is anything but freedom.
write about the Lend-Lease law that was signed on May 9th, 2022, and then killed, then, maybe, you'll get somewhere
Soviet Unions used to be an inspiration for far-left populists and communists. While Russia is the same today for far-right populists and nationalists.