Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
A clutch of leaders who will certainly or likely be in power next year have made clear their admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin. It may not last; we should hope it doesn't.
Donald Trump, leader-elect of the leaders of the free world, has repeatedly said that he likes the Russian autocrat’s governing style, and that he has always “felt fine” about Putin. “He's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader.” As Russia commentator Masha Gessen observed, the two are strikingly similar in their disregard for the facts. “It’s not just that both Putin and Trump lie,” writes Gessen, “it is that they lie in the same way and for the same purpose: blatantly, to assert power over truth itself.”
In France, both the main presidential challengers from the right also regard Putin, and Russia, with fondness. National Front Leader Marine Le Pen, who benefited from the generosity of one of Russia's state banks after taking a 9.4 million euro ($9.8 million) loan to help fund her run for the Elysee Palace, has expressed her admiration of Putin’s "cool head' when faced with “the West's new Cold War.”
Francois Fillon, the Republican Party leader expected to beat LePen when a demoralized left swings behind him faute de mieux - for want of a better choice - is also considered a friend of Cool Hand Vlad.
Italy, weaker after the defeat of former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's referendum on the constitution, will be keener than before on easing sanctions against Moscow so that the Italian economy can benefit from renewed trade. Italy’s interim prime minister, Paolo Gentiloni, said while still foreign minister last month that it would be good for Rome if Trump improved relations with Moscow “without giving up on principles.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Europe's most powerful politician, has stolidly reiterated the need for sanctions - but she's been under pressure from some months from her business lobby and could be forced to shift her stance when Russian-friendly presidents occupy the White House and the Elysee Palace in 2017.
At present, the three democracies among the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members - France, the United Kingdom and the United States - are committed to sanctions. Yet by the middle of next year, the UK could be the only Western country still adamant about maintaining them - and London no longer exerts much influence on the members of a European Union from which it is withdrawing.
Given the likelihood of this forecast we should be clear about the Russia we will, if not embrace, at least air-kiss on both cheeks (or do so three times, twice on one and once on the other cheek, in the Russian manner).
First, the sanctions were imposed because Moscow snatched a large province of Ukraine - Crimea - and fed Russian troops into Eastern Ukraine to help rouse inhabitants there against the elected government in Kiev. Russia now controls, overtly or de facto, two provinces of Georgia, Abkhazia and North Ossetia; Transnistria in Moldova and Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in Ukraine.
Second, Putin’s alliance with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has brought both victory over the rebels and shame on the West. The smashed city of Aleppo, with its thousands of unburied dead, is there to prove it. Single-mindedly, Putin has assisted Assad in flattening the rebels by destroying everything and everybody. Aleppo's fall is a tribute to the unflinching cruelty deployed, and to the endless prevarications of a West now determined never to be militarily involved in assisting the fall of tyrants. Which leaves Russia as their best friend, head of the “Authoritarian International.”
Third, Russia's media isn't just state-controlled, it's state-directed - at the West. The propaganda on the domestic channels is relentless, enthusiastic and dramatic to watch. Its foreign broadcasts - Russia Today, in several languages - use glossiness and sophisticated production techniques to paint a uniformly dystopian view of the West.
Allied to that is the determined hacking of Western websites, now with the purpose - always denied - of intervening in Western elections. The CIA has concluded that Moscow was behind the hacking into the U.S. Democratic National Committee's files and the dissemination, via Julian Assange's Wikileaks, of the embarrassing parts. Not only did Trump deny the report was true, he belittled what will be his major intelligence service as one which blunders routinely, adding that he's a “smart person” who doesn’t need all of its briefings. A better relationship with Russia could mean a benign indifference, at least on the part of the U.S. president, to Moscow’s hacking activities.
The Kremlin makes sure that no opposition party can come within striking difference of power, and that popular oppositionists, such as Alexei Navalny, are rendered politically impotent. It has put thousands of entrepreneurs in jail, determined to keep the now meager fruits of the economy for its own circle. It has banned NGOs from taking money from abroad and from engaging in (broadly defined) politics - and has even sought to crush Memorial, the institution founded at the end of the Soviet period to record the lives and deaths of at least some of the millions who perished in the Gulag. It shows more and more signs of being, not a loose, but a highly controlled cannon on both the home and the world scene.
It is true, as Zachary Karabell writes, that democratic states work daily with despots in China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. But Russia differs, for several reasons. It borders with several European states, and is eyeing some of them up for subversion if not seizure. It is both of, and not of, Europe; sometimes contemptuous, sometimes envious. At times proclaiming itself European; at other times, a separate Eurasian civilization. Its culture - especially music, fiction and drama - has enriched Western culture. And while its present rulers are determined to be anti-Western, more and more of its people, free to travel, read, debate and think things through for themselves, are becoming more European. Neither Europe, nor Russia, can leave the other alone.
In Putin's zero-sum world, what belongs to another is his to get, what's his is non-negotiable. It will be fascinating to see how the Deal-Maker in Chief in the White House, seeks deals with the world's poster boy for authoritarians. Or it would be if we could be mere spectators. But we are not. All of us will be deeply affected by, if not the victims of, the moves these two deeply illiberal leaders make.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.
21 Comments
Login to comment
Illyas
After a color revolution orchestrated by the CIA to overthrow the legitimate, democratically elected leader of the Ukraine.
Alfie Noakes
Comedy gold. An utter fabrication, as anyone actually following the story knows:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
FizzBit
No John Lloyd, your one sided bag headed opionins belong in a tool box next to the screwdrivers and wrenches.
FYI John, Hillary lost. You can stop being a tool for the globalist hedgemons. Game over.
Peteritalia
Putin is a children 's murderer forget the rest
Write to Kremlin stating what you think of him
may be some children from Aleppo will be spared because of our breaking the silence
Asakaze
And the anti-Putin club ("The Chosen ones") is much, much worse and dangerous. This club invades other countries (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria), overthrows foreign governmebts it does not like (Ukraine), holds people for decades without any charges at secret prisons (Guantanomo), supports open Nazis (Baltic republics, Ukraine) and terrorists (Syria), destroys national identities and traditional culture of European countries with onslaught of "rapefugees". Thanks God there is a leader who stands up against this horrible club. Good luck, Mr.Putin!
ozziedesigner
Asakaze Well put !!
BertieWooster
Alfie Noakes,
Thanks for an excellent link. It explains the situation beautifully.
Strangerland
That's if Assange is telling the truth, or being told the truth. He may be lying, or being lied to - remember it's not like he's been out and about meeting up with the contact.
turbotsat
The guy who received the info is an ex- UK ambassador, and says that the person who obtained it originally is American and was on the inside and had "legal access" (the ex-ambassador didn't receive it from that person but through an intermediary).
It's touching the faith people are now willing to put in third- to fourth-party retellings of supposedly CIA and FBI assessments, though. It's only been a month and half since Comey torpedoed HRH HRC's campaign effort.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=dnc+craig+murray
Strangerland
So now we're into 'Assange said he got it from a guy, who said he got it from another guy...."
Maybe it's true. But maybe it's not. I certainly don't believe it unquestioned, which it seems that you are, which is ironic considering how you go on about believing the MSM, and yet are more than willing to believe unverified hearsay...
shallots
@turbotsat Be skeptical of all positions here. There is also evidence that this is wrong - that it is not a leak, as Chris Murray claims. It's about parsing the reporting. It's more than just relying on U.S. assessments. There are reports by other security organizations such as described here: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/07/clinton-campaign-email-accounts-were-targeted-by-russians-too/
There is a big push by the far left/Trump-right (they seem to meet up 'round the bend) to present Putin favorably and perhaps as a victim of western propaganda/neocon policy...perhaps also they agree with the dismantling of post-war institutions such as the EU, Nato and global trade agendas. I'm not closed minded about all these claims. But I am skeptical and not so sanguine about what's coming. Definitely there's a segment of the left that meets the right as pro-Putin.
FizzBit
@shallots
Security organizations? Who's to say they're not funded by Soros or other Dems? I see no reason to "take their word for it".
And from your link...
The leak may only be the beginning of an effort to shape the US presidential election, or it may be a backup plan triggered by the exposure of the long-running breach.
or....it may be a leak from a DNC Bernie supporter. Who knows? Well, the NSA knows. Ask them.
unverified hearsay?! Assange doesn't f%#k around. If he says it, you should give him the benefit of the doubt. The fact that you can't just shows how desperately you want to cling to the MSM teat.
shallots
@FizzBit
FizzBit
@shallots
Who's he?
Akula
History will show that Putin is of the best leaders Russia has ever had. Russia when he took over was an absolute basketcase. The Russian Federation was on the verge of having a Soviet style breakup with a lot of its ethnic republics.
The Caucasus was restive with Islamists causing all sorts of havoc. Russias financial state was dire and its demographics were such that the population was starting to shrink and quickly. All these have been turned around. Higher oil and gas prices clearly helped but it is Putin's leadership that has regained at least some of Russia's strength and standing in the world.
One area he has failed though I might add is diversifying the Russian economy away from the resources and military sectors.
mt9334
Why is it that liberal "journalists" such as Mr. John Lloyd fail to see that not everyone holds the same view that democracy is the supreme form of government? Democracy, by its very essence necessitates that the people rule themselves. And, under Mr. Lloyds worldview, this would also mean that the people are autonomous, with no admittance of religion.
Imagine a father of a couple of teen children. Their curfew is to be determined by the teens themselves. One night, they arrive at midnight. Another, at 3:00 A.M. Every night, they decide on a different curfew, and abide by it. In actuality, they have no curfew, they only have a facade. Oh, they themselves claim to have a curfew, but they have no such thing....for it is changed at their own whim.
Democracy, accomplishes the exact same thing. Since the people themselves get to make up their own laws (autonomously), then in reality there is no law. There is only the facade that appears to be lawfulness, but in reality is lawlessness. Democracy is lawlessness. Liberals, (and many conservatives!) would like to spread their particular form of lawlessness across the globe, and seem dumbfounded when leaders such as Putin don't "play along".
Putin is a strong leader. Period. Trump, is the exact opposite of Hillary (and Obama!), so therefore he will be a strong leader as well...to the dismay of the "John Lloyds" of the world.
turbotsat
What's "the evidence"? That link?
Murray says he was handed the wikileaked info by someone who obtained it from an insider, not via a hack.
You provided a link claiming Russians were hacking the DNC.
Just because those items are in the same category don't mean they are at all related (other than by categorization), or that the Russians are involved in wikileaks.
And at this point, do you expect the Democratic National Committee of being incapable in any way, whether intelligently, ethically, or by dearth of resources, of hiring someone to present faked evidence of attacks on them? After Benghazi, Bob Creamer, Hillary's years-long shell game with her email servers, and DNC vs Sanders? It's probably the first thing they thought of! If there wasn't evidence of a hack, they'd have to create it!
Not saying that there's any proof they ARE faking it, or that Russia isn't incapable of attempting to hack the DNC. But it also doesn't obviate that Murray and Wikileaks' stories might also be entirely correct.
shallots
@turbotsat Um...the link contains a description of evidence for hacking. I know what Murray says but I see no reason to absolutely believe or disbelieve him at this point. I get that he's friends with Assange and Assange has long had very certain axes to grind. I don't feel expert enough to evaluate any of this to a near certainty. The information in the link I put, and other articles, is a bit technical. I don't trust Assange, given his position. But, it's not like American intelligence organizations have great track records. I keep an open, but skeptical, mind.
turbotsat
It does, but the Democratic leadership has zero credibility now, except to their fan base. Like I said, if they hadn't been hacked, and the information hand-carried out by an insider for transport to Wikileaks, the Dems would feel they had to make up a different story. (Especially if that insider was Seth Rich.) And they certainly know how to make up stories. With a compliant media, they don't even have to try hard. That they have a story now, doesn't mean it's true. And even if it's true they were hacked, it doesn't mean that's how Wikileaks got their information. The Dems have shown themselves entirely capable of making stupid lies for PR purposes. The video explanation for Benghazi was a stupid, unnecessary lie, they pushed it to the public while telling the the truth to their confidantes and to foreign governments. It's not realpolitik, as they'd like us to believe, but stupidity.
shallots
@turbotsat All parties have different reasons to spin the narrative that they want. If you think the Dems are less likely to spin and obfuscate or misrepresent than Trump or the Repubs or Assange then there is no point in further exchange because we are working from different premises. There are many points of view, for and against various sides, that I'm willing to entertain. That the Dems are a special case - no. Is there enough evidence to conclude that Putin was up to no good? I'm not sure. I'm certainly not ruling it out.