DAVID GREGORY:
But isn't it interesting that I heard the president say, "Look, we don't want to look at this like the Cold War." But isn't that how Vladimir Putin views all of this? Doesn't he look at this sphere of influence very much in a Cold War context?
SUSAN RICE:
He may. But if he does, that's a pretty dated perspective that doesn't reflect where the people of Ukraine are coming from. This is not about the U.S. and Russia, this is about whether the people of Ukraine have the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations and be democratic and be part of Europe, which they choose to be.
But isn't it interesting that I heard the president say, "Look, we don't want to look at this like the Cold War." But isn't that how Vladimir Putin views all of this? Doesn't he look at this sphere of influence very much in a Cold War context?
SUSAN RICE:
He may. But if he does, that's a pretty dated perspective that doesn't reflect where the people of Ukraine are coming from. This is not about the U.S. and Russia, this is about whether the people of Ukraine have the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations and be democratic and be part of Europe, which they choose to be.
That is also from the February 23 NBC interview quoted in the last post. Do we notice the contradiction? That "this is not about the U.S. and Russia" but the Russian president "may" view the Ukraine crisis in a Cold War context? Putin was a KGB official in the Soviet Union. He has said that the breakup of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. Think about that: In the 20th century, the geopolitical catastrophe that was the Soviet Union was born; the geopolitical catastrophe of World War I occurred, World War II, after which the geopolitical entity of Prussia was killed off, the geopolitical catastrophe of the People's Republic of China was born...That's enough, right? So, yeah Putin "may" view Ukraine from a Cold War perspective.
Is Susan Rice truly in doubt about that? Is her boss, the Electrification Engineer for Africa? Are they thick to have made statements that the U.S. and Russia had shared interests in Ukraine or were they trying to convince themselves, and Putin. I believe it was the latter; they are not so thick as to believe truly the former.
It was a mistake. It was a mistake for Susan Rice, Barack Obama, and the Minister of Talk, John Kerry, to make the argument of shared interests to the Russians, to these Russians.
The Obamas mistake has the patina of precedent; it is a rich patina, precedent. The precedent here is Bush43's (a lot of precedents are his) which makes its patina less rich. Bush "looked into the eye" of Putin and saw a good man. Bush vouched for Putin, literally brought him into the club of Good Men, the G8. They, and their countries, were to be "partners" henceforth, not enemies in running the world. Bush made a mistake. Bush saw something in Putin's eyes that wasn't there. Uncannily, Ukraine is a reprise of Putin's 2008 dismemberment of Georgia, which Bush learned of at the Beijing Olympics. Bush now considers Putin "cold." Obama, the lazy constitutional law lecturer, knows well the power of precedent, even one whose patina looks less rich and more like just rust, and Obama tried to "reset" American-Russian relations. Then they met. Obama and Putin met and Obama couldn't look into Putin's eye because Putin was looking at the floor in boredom. Obama now considers Putin childish and Putin considers Obama weak.
But history is bunk, right? Henry Ford said that and we all like Ford trucks and what's the diff? What is the "cash value," we remember "cash value" from our studies of Pragmatism, what is the cash value of this historical precedent, whether rich or rusty? Here's Susan Rice again from that same interview:
SUSAN RICE:
"David, first of all, we have to be very pragmatic. [She's a pragmatist!] And President Obama has been exceedingly pragmatic [He's an exceeding pragmatist!] about our dealings with Russia. There are areas where we can cooperate with them." Viz, she then went on to viz, this is the viz part:
"But let's look at both sides of the ledger. [Looking at ledgers, tres pragmatique.]We have been able to reach a new and very important arms control agreement with them, The New Start Treaty. We've been able to cooperate on Afghanistan and Russia's role in enabling us to move our equipment and personnel in and out of Afghanistan. It's been very important. On Iran, we've actually been working together on the effort to use diplomacy to see if we can't obtain a nuclear agreement. They've been
cooperative in that.
...
"And yesterday, because of U.S. leadership and that of other partners, we were able, for the first time, to get a resolution in the United Nations Security Council that binds the Syrian government to allow humanitarian assistance in."
"But let's look at both sides of the ledger. [Looking at ledgers, tres pragmatique.]We have been able to reach a new and very important arms control agreement with them, The New Start Treaty. We've been able to cooperate on Afghanistan and Russia's role in enabling us to move our equipment and personnel in and out of Afghanistan. It's been very important. On Iran, we've actually been working together on the effort to use diplomacy to see if we can't obtain a nuclear agreement. They've been
cooperative in that.
...
"And yesterday, because of U.S. leadership and that of other partners, we were able, for the first time, to get a resolution in the United Nations Security Council that binds the Syrian government to allow humanitarian assistance in."
Well, I think that is a pretty impressive viz! If we ask ourselves a related question to "What's the diff?," if we ask ourselves a question also with a rich patina of precedent, "Are we better off now than we were during the real Cold War?," the answer is "Are you fucking stupid, of course we are!" The world is better off, America is better off, Russia is better off. That is, Susan Rice is right, Barack Obama is right: War, Cold or hot, is interactive, you cannot war without a "partner." The Obamas are right to refuse to engage with Russia over Putin's Cold War real war on Ukraine. They are right that this is not about the U.S. and Russia. "Pragmatism explains everything..." Louis Menand wrote. It explains this, it gives guidance on Ukraine. The U.S. and the world should "cost" Russia for this naked aggression but it should not cost Russia back into the Cold War.
"...except what a man is to die for," was Menand's conclusion to that sentence. The Obamas pragmatism does not, of course, explain why Ukraine must die. "But it must," is the honest, agonized, brutal answer that Pragmatism, the Obamas, and I give. I am Benjamin Harris.
"...except what a man is to die for," was Menand's conclusion to that sentence. The Obamas pragmatism does not, of course, explain why Ukraine must die. "But it must," is the honest, agonized, brutal answer that Pragmatism, the Obamas, and I give. I am Benjamin Harris.
