February 28, 2014

U.S. needs a better foreign policy team

From the WSJ:
"We are now deeply concerned about reports of military movements taken by the Russian federation inside of Ukraine," Mr. Obama said from the White House. 
"The U.S. will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine," he added, without detailing what actions the U.S. and international community would take. 
The president's statement came amid a day of heightened tension in Ukraine, after heavily armed gunmen surrounded two airports in the restive pro-Russian region of Crimea, which prompted outcries from authorities in the region that Russia was behind the invasion.

Meanwhile, as the Russkies fly troops into Crimea, the Russian diplomats continue to point out that the president of the Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup by street fighters and demand that the peaceful deal worked out with the opposition and with American proxies like Slate columnist Anne Applebaum's husband Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, be reinstated. The Guardian quotes Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin:
Ukraine had a democratically elected president with a democratically elected majority in parliament. Yatsenyuk could’ve taken the post [of prime minister, offered during negotiations], and could’ve signed the agreement with the European Union if he wanted, but then they went for toppling the president and a regime-change operation. 
Interference from our western colleagues has not been helpful, and they have certain responsibilities to those dramatic consequences and also responsibilities for not following through on those agreements they affixed their signatures on February 21. 
The best way to resolve the crisis is to look hard at the February 21 agreement. They need to [reform] a constitution. they need to refrain from a hasty presidential election which is likely to cause more friction. They need to show that this is about national unity.

The Guardian adds: "Churkin did not acknowledge that protesters in Kiev never accepted the agreement and that Yanukovych had fled the capital by last Friday night."

If that's not Democracy! I don't know what is.

I presume that Obama and Kerry would have been very happy with Sikorski's deal, but the street bravos weren't. Yet, the Obama Administration and its allies like George Soros (but which is the tail and which is the dog?) have some degree of responsibility for setting in motion the putsch.

Did Obama and Kerry realize they were playing with fire?

Personally, I didn't see myself as suffering all that much from the fact that until a week ago Ukraine had an elected president whose policy was to try to play off Russia and the West in economic negotiations to try to get the best deals for his government (not necessarily for his citizens, of course -- but I'm struck by how much of the anger in the American press at the former Ukrainian president is over his impudence at trying to extract more money from Putin than whatever the West was willing to offer).

But now we've got a new Cold War, and I suspect I'll be paying for it for a long, long time.

Do you get the impression that 70-year-old John Kerry is in over his head as Secretary of State? I don't particularly dislike Kerry, but he's not exactly Henry Kissinger as an intellect, and he's not getting any younger. He looked like a fool in the Syrian crisis, fortunately blundering into a peaceful resolution.

The other big issue that is hard to explore is how much control do Obama and Kerry really have over the more aggressive elements of the Deep State, such as the Nuland-Kagans and Soros. Does anybody know? How would you find out?

For example, I've seen only the most coded interest in the mainstream press in investigating the question: Did we go too far in the Ukraine? By unleashing -- whether unintentionally or intentionally -- a bunch of Banderaite hard men to overthrow the elected president, that's naturally upsetting to Russians (and to Poles, too). But, will there be any accountability within the U.S. for overplaying a strong hand?
   

107 comments:

Bert said...

I think Kerry's a whole hell of a lot better than Clinton was. At least Kerry isn't manically stamping his foot and demanding everyone follow his lead.

David M. said...

"American proxies like Slate columnist Anne Applebaum's husband Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister"

In their defense, the Poles actually do have a vital interest in the Ukraine. Indeed, for most of Poland's history, large parts of the Ukraine were Poland.

The sensible role the U.S. should have played in all this was to assure Poland that it had its back and not to worry too much (although Poland's confidence in American guarantees has decreased a great deal since the missile defense debacle). Instead the U.S. was more aggressive than Poland was.

Anonymous said...

Do you get the impression that 70-year-old John Kerry is in over his head as Secretary of State? I don't particularly dislike Kerry, but he's not exactly Henry Kissinger as an intellect, and he's not getting any younger. He looked like a fool in the Syrian crisis, fortunately blundering into a peaceful resolution.

I think part of it is the plastic surgery he's had. He looks younger than he is, so you think he'd be a bit sharper than he should be for his age.

reiner Tor said...

Did Obama and Kerry realize they were playing with fire?

Did the Deep State realize it? If so, did they care?

Anonymous said...

It's kind of surreal what the left has become. Take George Soros: aggressive interventionist and cartoonishly capitalistic financier.

It increasingly seems to me that all the traditional distinctions of politics like labor vs. capital, hawk vs. dove, etc. have been rendered nugatory by the consolidation of a single ruling class across all sectors of society, public and private, and by the who-whom outlook of that class.

They're just interested in winning.

Harry Baldwin said...

Kerry really seems to have suffered some loss of mental acuity. I recall him from the 2004 campaign and he didn't seem as befuddled and inarticulate as he does now.

It's like looking at G W Bush's performance in his Texas gubernatorial debates compared to his performance in his presidential debates. Both men seem to have suffered some senile dementia in the interim.

Anonymous said...

Does EU really want Ukraine? EU included Greece and what did it get? A toilet bowl of EU finances.
EU swallowed Romania and what did it get? A crapload of gypsies messing up EU cities. Ukraine is filled with cutthroats, gangsters, criminals, leeches, and etc. It's not another Poland.

Alright, bring in the Cossacks.

Anonymous said...

"...but he's not exactly Henry Kissinger as an intellect"

I come not to defend Kerry, but to stone Kissinger. And Nixon while I'm at it. They were very clever. Killed a whole bunch of people and accomplished nothing. But they sure looked slick doing it.

Anonymous said...

http://youtu.be/tbad22CKlB4?t=29s

It's hard to do but must be done.

Steve Sailer said...

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is 68. He's a good man, and has shown some spine over the years, but his confirmation hearings weren't dazzling.

Anonymous said...

So Powers and Rice aren't up to snuff? Powers wants to use our military as some sort of NGO on steroids and Rice doesn't know anything.

Obama surrounded himself with Kerry and silly idealistic women no wonder his foreign policy is a mess.

Anonymous said...

"It's kind of surreal what the left has become. Take George Soros: aggressive interventionist and cartoonishly capitalistic financier."

It's always been that way. Jacob Schiff financed the Russian Revolution. The left didn't become that, it was always that.

Anonymous said...

"Slate columnist Anne Applebaum's husband Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister,"

Bizarre fact of the day. Thanks.

Art Deco said...

the Russian diplomats continue to point out that the president of the Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup by street fighters and demand that the peaceful deal worked out with the opposition

Actually impeached and deposed by the national legislature, but it's so much fun to pretend otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I can't think of a single man in uniform who would bother to piss on Hagel if he was on fire. He turbocharged the farcical sex assault witch hunt, didn't make a single tough appropriations call and is keeping op tempo at a historic high while leveling salvos if insane rules at the junior enlisted. Christine Fox is the only sane suit in the Pentagon.

Simon in London said...

>>Do you get the impression that 70-year-old John Kerry is in over his head as Secretary of State?<<

Yes, he seems to be an idiot.
That was already pretty obvious in the 2004 election, though. I knew Hillary standing down as Sec of State would be bad, but maybe not this bad.

Anonymous said...

I must say, though, THE WAY BACK by Peter Weir is a beautiful and powerful film--except for the gooey ending.

Anonymous said...

Nothing but winning the Vietnam War and driving a mortal wound into worldwide communism by exploiting the USSR China rift, right?

SFG said...

"It's always been that way. Jacob Schiff financed the Russian Revolution. The left didn't become that, it was always that. "

Following your link, I see little evidence he was anything of a lefty; he just hated the Czar. He also apparently was pro-German, which is amusing on the other side of WW2.

Racialist Heretic said...

I think the present team is fine. Their incompetence is just what we need.

On a related note, a piece on Israeli involvement in the Ukrainian insurgency:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-militia-commander-fights-to-protect-kiev/

Anonymous said...

Personally, I didn't see myself as suffering all that much from the fact that until a week ago Ukraine had an elected president whose policy was to try to play off Russia and the West in economic negotiations to try to get the best deals for his government (not necessarily for his citizens, of course -- but I'm struck by how much of the anger in the American press at the former Ukrainian president is over his impudence at trying to extract more money from Putin than whatever the West was willing to offer).

Actually the West did not seem to have a problem with the democratically elected president of the Ukraine until he refused the EU offer in November. At that point he became a tyrant, dictator, etc. and needed to go. This is about expanding the US/EU and contracting Russia.

I am also getting tired of the overt hypocrisy of America and how the powers in DC are not even trying hide it. We accuse Russia of meddling in the affairs of the Ukraine, while the world listened to the cell phone call of our high ranking officials planning the next government of the Ukraine.

We tout the right of people to self determination, and then force Serbia to give up Kosovo because it had become majority Albanian. Then when the northern Serb enclave in Kosovo wanted to secede and rejoin Serbia, we invoked the importance of maintaining the territorial integrity of a nation.

Ditto for the Serbs in Bosnia. They have every right, based upon what we were supporting in the rest of Yugoslavia, to break away and be ruled by fellow Serbs. But we invoked the territorial integrity argument.

Then we saw what happened in Georgia. In what looked like a replay of Serbs, Albanians and Kosovo, we directly contradicted our stance that we had taken in 1999.

And it looks to be the same in Ukraine. If Russian Crimea wants to rejoin Russia, we've already gone on record as saying that can never happen.

We are not consistent and don't even try to come up with good arguments. I suppose we are consistent in the fact that if its perceived as being against Russian interests, then we are for it. Other than that, I don't see any consistency.

Anonymous said...

"Kerry really seems to have suffered some loss of mental acuity. I recall him from the 2004 campaign and he didn't seem as befuddled and inarticulate as he does now."

Well, his patrician bearing hid his less than stellar smarts, but perhaps all that Botox has had some deleterious effects?

Anonymous said...


"Obama surrounded himself with Kerry and silly idealistic women no wonder his foreign policy is a mess."

Obama = Alan Alda

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Steve, it looks as if those sinister Ukrainian Nationalists everyone keeps worrying about have, shall we say, been brought to heel by the proper authorities:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-h-foxman/in-ukraine-new-government_b_4875833.html

Anonymous said...

http://www.cracked.com/video_18538_the-real-reason-they-dont-want-evolution-taught-in-schools.html

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"It's always been that way. Jacob Schiff financed the Russian Revolution. The left didn't become that, it was always that."

Not to mention the role played by Imperial Germany in getting Lenin into Russia:


"Negotiations with the Provisional Government to obtain passage through Germany for the Russian exiles in return for German and Austro-Hungarian prisoners of war dragged on. Eventually, bypassing the Provisional Government, on 31 March the Swiss Communist Fritz Platten obtained permission from the German Foreign Minister through his ambassador in Switzerland, Baron Gisbert von Romberg, for Lenin and other Russian exiles to travel through Germany to Russia in a sealed one-carriage train. At Lenin's request the carriage would be protected from interference by a special grant of extraterritorial status. There are many evidences for German financial commitment to the mission of Lenin. The aim was to disintegrate Russian resistance in the First World War by spreading the revolutionary unrest. Financial support was continued until July 1917, when the Provisional Government, after revealing German funding for the Bolsheviks, outlawed the party and issued an arrest warrant for Lenin" (WIKIPEDIA)

Some things never change.

Anonymous said...

, I see little evidence he was anything of a lefty; he just hated the Czar.

Maybe Jacob Schiff wasn't as politically left as George Soros, but one thing they do have in common is that they reinforce the negative stereotype of a certain group that is perceived as having more power and influence than their proportion of the population would suggest, and who wreck havoc on the rest of the world. If I were the ADL, I'd condemn and distance myself from those bastards.

Anonymous said...

"Following your link, I see little evidence he was anything of a lefty."

He supported leftism (Communist revolution) for the outgroup and rightism (ethnonationalism) for the ingroup. Same with Soros. All politics is tribal.

Anonymous said...

Actually impeached and deposed by the national legislature, but it's so much fun to pretend otherwise.

That was after he was chased out of the country and the national legislature was basically threatened to impeach and depose him.

Anonymous said...

It's so bizarre for me to read that the new prime minister of the Crimea is named Sergey Aksenov. When I was 16 I read Ostrov Krym (The Island of Crimea) by the writer Vasily Aksenov. I loved that book then, though I have no idea if I would now.

V. Aksenov's premise was that if the Crimea had been an island (it's actually a peninsula), the White movement could have used it as a permanent refuge after the Russian Civil War the way that Chang Kai Shek's guys used Taiwan later. Vasily Aksenov imagined what kind of society these aristocratic exiles and the Crimean Tatars would have created together over decades.

Because of that novel, read at a very impressionable age, I've been associating the name Aksenov with the Crimea for most of my life.

Anonymous said...

The U.S. will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine

Waiting for someone in Russia with the balls to say or do:

"Russia will stand with the Commonwealth of Independent States in affirming that there will be costs for any fascist putsch in Ukraine organized by America neo-conservative extremists being recognized as a legitimate government."

And to then back that up by stating they are sending in the Russian Army to liberate the southern and eastern pro-Russia swath of the country from Transnistria to Kharkov and dare Obama and Kerry to do something about it.

I suspect Obama and Co. are all bluster, as they have no realistic response to Russia "liberating" those Ukranians and Russians who do not want to be ruled by L'viv's extremists and plotters and thugs other than a catastrophic ground war with NATO forces attempting a new Operation Barabarossa.

And similarly, why would Russia really be interested in the impoverished and backwards Galacian and Volhynian regions of Ukraine? All the wealth and resources of the country are in the pro-Russian area.

Make the simple solution happen.

Anonymous said...

"I knew Hillary standing down as Sec of State would be bad, but maybe not this bad."

Huh? Because she piled up miles on that jet?

Because she was really prepared for our embassies to be under attack on 9/11?

Anonymous said...

Hagel is kinda dim-witted.

Lou Bernoulli said...

Kerry was a rambling incoherent babbler in 2004. I recall a very lefty friend telling me he sounded incoherent because he was just too smart for me to understand, so I asked her if she could parse it. She looked a little embarrassed and admitted that no, it didn't make much sense to her either. She just felt like she had to stand up for her side's guy, and fair play to her. I was a Republican in those days and very happy to have a stupid Democrat to focus attention on.

In his concession speech that year, he sounded heavily sedated. Edwards, by contrast, sounded great conceding. Lots of energy and focus. Remember Edwards? He'd have been a better choice for SecState. Or president, come to think of it: just as evil and crazy, but he was there in the room and doesn't mind working hard. Still hate the little weasel.

Anonymous said...

It just occurred to me that Russia experienced a color revolution way back in 1917. Schiff was Soros and the color was red. None of the motivations have changed.

Reg Cæsar said...

Obama = Alan Alda

Whiplash alert! I thought Obama was supposed to be resentful of women, not an upsucker.

On the other hand, Bill C was both. Maybe Alda, too he was a big hit playing a jerk on S*H*A*M, but a flop as a feminist. (Whiskey alert!)

jody said...

don't worry steve, john mccain is on the case.

we are all ukrainians now.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4:37p

I suppose we are consistent in the fact that if its perceived as being against Russian interests

Every so often I read something and commit it to memory forever because it is such an important revelation of the way things really stand.

One of those things was a Penthouse article in the mid-1980's, where some intrepid reporter was investigating who the CIA was funding in Afghanistan and came to the conclusion that our policy was inextricably tilted towards providing the most money to extremist Islamic elements (which eventually became the Taliban and Al Qaede), and the least money towards pro-western/pro-freedom elements among the Mujahadeen. It was a "revelation of the method" moment showing the actual intentions of the American Deep State was the creation of the new enemy needed to keep the money flowing rather than a support of our idealistic supposed values.

Another was a phrase uttered by Mikhail Gorbachev at Strasbourg near the end of his rule concerning the need and desire to form a "Common European Home" first from "the Atlantic to the Urals" and later from "Vancouver to Vladivostok." Specifically:

"The realities of today and the prospects for the foreseeable future are obvious: the Soviet Union and the United States are a natural part of the European international and political structure.
"Their involvement in its evolution is not only justified, but also historically conditioned. No other approach is acceptable. In fact, it will even be counterproductive.... "Yet even today, I do not claim to carry a finished blueprint of that home in my pocket. I just wish to tell you what I believe to be most important.
"In actual fact, what we have in mind is a restructuring of the international order existing in Europe that would put the European common values in the forefront and make it possible to replace the traditional balance of forces with a balance of interests ...
"I am convinced that it is high time the Europeans brought their policies and their conduct into line with a new common sense — not to prepare for war, not to intimidate one another, not to compete with one another either in improving weapons, or, especially, in attempts to offset the initiated reductions, but rather to learn to make peace together and to lay jointly a solid basis for it. ...
What we need is to expand greatly cultural co-operation, increaseinteraction in the field of humanitarian sciences and to attain a higher level of information exchanges. In a word, the Europeans must step up the process of getting to know each other better. A special role here could be played by television, which brings into contact scores and hundreds of millions, rather than hundreds or thousands, of men and women.
There are also certain dangers inherent in that. They should be seen. Performing stages, screens, exhibition halls, and publishing houses are flooded with commercial pseudo-culture alien to Europe. National languages are treated with disdain. All this calls for our common attention and joint work in the spirit of respect for the true national values of each and everyone.

In other words, Gorbachev propsoed laying aside the destructive Cold War armaments race and instead focusing on the common development of the white world in progress on economics and culture with an emphasis on preserving and fostering each specific European subculture within the overal unity of western culture..

Anglo-American policy since that speech has been aimed precisely at thwarting any possibility of this enticing vision of peaceful cultural development coming about. The only acceptable policy is one of American dominance and subservience of all others, most especially the only possible counterweight to American dominance - Russia. Thus China is invited into the WTO and flooded with international development capital, while Russia is excluded and hounded in its every act.

JWS said...

Speaking of diplomacy, George Kennan has been in the news lately because a new edition of his diaries came out.

I read a book by Kennan in college and I remember his accurate insights about America's place in the world -- he would have kept us out of Vietnam and Iraq, and steered clear of the current administration's saber-rattling against the Russians-- and also his sophisticated writing style.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/books/review/the-kennan-diaries-by-george-f-kennan.html?_r=0

Reading the quotations from Kennan in the NYT book review, I am surprised he is not an iSteve hero on the level of Tom Wolfe.

2Degrees said...

I am hoping against hope that option A of the two possible scenarios comes to pass.

Option A

During the Cold War, the Soviets were a very real threat. The Cold War frontier could be reached by car and ferry in less than a day from my home in the Cotswolds. The Soviets also had powerful proxies in Britain in the form of CND and the trades unions, particularly the miners' leader Arthur Scargill. However, the majority of the population saw Soviet Communism as a threat to be resisted and the Western Alliance remained firm.

Those days are over. Britain now has a large Muslim population and few of the locals will fight to save South Yorkshire for Islam.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has announced that Britain needs to open its cheque book for the Ukraine. Britain is up to its eyes in debt and there is no tolerance for pouring money into the pockets of crooks in Kiev.

Soros and friends make themselves look like fools.

Option B

Weakened Russia is still a credible enough bogeyman to take the minds of the sheeple off their replacement by Bangladeshis and Somalis.

Gay rights and anti-conservativism replace freedom of conscience and the market economy as the issues around which Westerners identify.

Which scenario do you think is the more likely?

jody said...

if we're talking about age, hilary clinton will be 69 when she takes office in january 2017. that's at the start of her first term. by the end of the whole nightmare, she could be 77.

she already appears to have slowed down mentally a good amount, and the election is not for another 2 years.

oh, and bill might actually die while she's in office. he's not in good health. yet another thing to distract her, i mean, distract the president. although distracting her might be good. a brief respite from destroying the united states. she doesn't play golf, so we have to hope for SOMETHING to get the president out of washington DC and away from wrecking the country all day every day.

yikes. the first president who doesn't play any of the sports which occupy some of a president's time and give us slobs and serfs a breather from them controlling the nation every second. she will be a control freak the likes of which we have never seen.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/books/review/the-kennan-diaries-by-george-f-kennan.html?_r=0

George Kennan was a 'racist'.

Semi-employed White Guy said...

Christian Bale looked like an animated skeleton in The Machinist. I thought it was a special effect at first. Did he take some kind of reverse-steroids for atrophy? From Wikipedia:

According to the DVD commentary, he lost 62 pounds (28 kg), reducing his body mass to 120 pounds (54 kg). Bale wanted to go down to 99 pounds (45 kg), but the filmmakers would not let him due to health concerns. He later regained the mass, plus an additional 60 pounds (27 kg) through weightlifting and proper eating, in preparation for his role in Batman Begins.

Chicago said...

It's hard for Kerry or anyone else to come across in a convincing manner when they realize the script handed to them to read from is rubbish. His tut-tutting of the Ugandans for their lack of enthusiasm toward gays seems forced and artificial. He doesn't seem as though he really believes what he's saying. No 70 year old white male gives a hoot about gays.

CJ said...

"Does EU really want Ukraine? EU included Greece and what did it get? A toilet bowl of EU finances.
EU swallowed Romania and what did it get? A crapload of gypsies messing up EU cities."


I've wondered the same thing. The best answer I can come up with is that the EU is directed by an unchecked nomenklatura who are running a bust-out on all the territory they control, and hence always want that territory expanded. Similarly, the elites of Wall Street and Washington, D.C. are running a bust-out on America, and hence always want to expand the American empire regardless of the actual interests of American citizens.

jody said...

LOL

Luke Lea said...

"If that's not Democracy! I don't know what is." ha ha

Alice said...

I know Steve is nuts about how great and good Russia is, never mind its history of wvil and terror, but losing stability in Egypt , Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine isn't due to the Deep Staters. It is entirely to our affirmative action inspector Clouseau and his aides who are dumber than he is. The reset button , the withdrawal of our nuclear shield from Poland, the "flexibility", the idiotic bluff in Syria led to this. They belong to the big Zero.

And your kid will pay for it. because the weakness will result in China playing more games too, and the world will be far more dangerous . Even here. And maybe this president won't send troops but another will have to. The nuclear proliferation that comes from this will be to every entity every where. And still no fence to save us.

Nellie Bly said...

Off Topic:

Spanish Morocco is under an immigration siege lately:

Africans Surge to Europe's Door


Anonymous said...

"Nothing but winning the Vietnam War and driving a mortal wound into worldwide communism by exploiting the USSR China rift, right?"

What planet are you living on? Vietnam was a loss and for that matter worldwide communism was always going to die anyway. Neither reds had the power to move beyond their borders in any meaningful sense.

Anonymous said...

George Kennan was a 'racist'.

Yep you can't help but note the irony of the politically correct NYT praising Kennan for his "acute sense of realism" in one paragraph and "racism" a few paragraphs later.

Alexandros HoMegas said...

"It's kind of surreal what the left has become. Take George Soros: aggressive interventionist and cartoonishly capitalistic financier."

--------------

"The internationalist and the imperialist"
"THE internationalist and the imperialist are not only similar men, but even the same men. There is no country which the Imperialist may not claim to conquer in order to convert. There is no country which the Internationalist may not claim to convert in order to conquer. Whether it is called international law or imperial law, it is the very soul and essence of all lawlessness. Against all such amorphous anarchy stands that great and positive creation of Christendom, the nation, with its standards of liberty and loyalty, with its limits of reason and proportion."

~G.K. Chesterton: Illustrated London News, Oct. 5, 1918.

5371 said...

Art Deco said...
the Russian diplomats continue to point out that the president of the Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup by street fighters and demand that the peaceful deal worked out with the opposition

Actually impeached and deposed by the national legislature, but it's so much fun to pretend otherwise.

2/28/14, 4:15 PM

Sorry to break it to you, but there are complicated and precise legal forms which have to be observed to constitute a valid impeachment. You know this is true in the US, why does it not dawn on you concerning the Ukraine?

Mount Shasta Inquirer said...

So how does Kerry say to Russia, "OK you can have the Crimea, but if you go any farther that's really a red line.

Anonymous said...

George Kennan was a 'racist'.

That NYT's piece was written by FAREED ZAKARIA. He obviously did not like this passages from Kennan:

“In addition to being a political isolationist, I am a believer in autarky. Not only do I believe that the healthy national society would rigidly eschew the importation of foreign labor . . . but I consider that it should restrict to a minimum its economic and financial involvements with other peoples.”

As a foreign gadfly who promotes immigration and the multicult, that was too much.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to break it to you, but there are complicated and precise legal forms which have to be observed to constitute a valid impeachment. You know this is true in the US, why does it not dawn on you concerning the Ukraine?

Because he's a neocon. See his history of comments here.

Anonymous said...

Kennan also thought the US was too big and should be split into 12 or so countries.

Anonymous said...

"I am surprised he is not an iSteve hero on the level of Tom Wolfe."

Sailer loves tech and pop culture.

Anonymous said...

"Actually impeached and deposed by the national legislature, but it's so much fun to pretend otherwise."

When guys like Sashko Bilyi are outside with Kalashnikovs, I'm pretty sure the votes of a legislature have no legitimacy.

Anonymous said...

"Hagel is kinda dim-witted."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqLPIBJ9az4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiOzfyliNzE

Anonymous said...

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/02/28/top10list/

Harry Baldwin said...

Kennan also thought the US was too big and should be split into 12 or so countries.

Apparently our elites do as well. They're trying their best to make our continuance as one nation impossible.

Anonymous said...

OT:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579395220334268350?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303636404579395220334268350.html

Can you say disparate impact?

Anonymous said...

"Nothing but winning the Vietnam War and driving a mortal wound into worldwide communism by exploiting the USSR China rift, right?"

What? Who won the Vietnam war? The Vietnamese got what they were bargaining for from the get go. We just killed a few million more people and lost thousands of our own and.... Ech. Forget it. Go worship your devil masters. I give up.

Anonymous said...

Steve,
I keep banging on about this, but the fixation that Americans have that they run the world seems to hard to overcome with certain quarters,but I keep stressing that the real villains of this piece, the real troublemakers and instigators of conflict is the EU.
It is the aggressive empire-building of the EU into territory that rightly or wrongly all sensible people consider to be in the 'Russian sphere of influence' that sparked this whole crisis in the first place. Now, the term 'sphere of influence' might not have the same import that it had in 1945, but the wilier and branier school of old time diplomat knew exactly what it meant and why it existed. Not so much big board power bloc politics, but more to do with primeval home turf. Think of the Monroe Doctrine, for example.

Now we have the stupid, dumb bastards who run the EU - who are not content with destroying western Europeans by stagnating them to death trying to provoke World War 3 by taking their pompous, self-important and self righteous al piss and wind 'human rights' bullshit banner where it's not needed.
If the stupid fools who run the EU want to race replace western Europeans with Africans and Indians, then that'll be their business. If actual European citizens are too dumb or timid to call them out on their game, then that too is their business. One can only hope of an 'EU spring' in which European nationalist parties finally get their act together and bring that evil dictatorship down.

Anonymous said...

The problem is they're not motivated by what is in the best long-term interests of the United States. They're motivated by settling various historical grudges and getting their cousins into the top jobs.

Anonymous said...

When dumb bastard Gorbachev - and his shambolic politicking - finally destroyed the nation and party who was supposedly pledged to defend, assurance were sought from NATO that no westren troops would move into the vacated space in eastern Eurpoe left by the Red Army.

Not only were those pledges were utterly, utterly worthless 'the west' surpassed itself by actually having the temerity, in the fullness of a mere two decades, of moving in on the sacred soil of the Kievan 'Rus.

- Now, I always thought that Russinas wre a dmaned sight smart and shrewder than that dumb bastard Gorbachev.

Anonymous said...

"It just occurred to me that Russia experienced a color revolution way back in 1917. Schiff was Soros and the color was red. None of the motivations have changed."

Yup. Banking mafia.

100s of millions dead.

Anonymous said...

"We are not consistent and don't even try to come up with good arguments. I suppose we are consistent in the fact that if its perceived as being against Russian interests, then we are for it. Other than that, I don't see any consistency."

The option chosen is always the most anti-white option.

Anonymous said...

"Does EU really want Ukraine?"

The EU wants "more."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWa6vsXOKAU

Peter the Shark said...

But now we've got a new Cold War, and I suspect I'll be paying for it for a long, long time.

I doubt it. Russia is a dying country. The Deep State is playing a long-term game and probably doing better than you think. It is obvious that Russia is slowly collapsing. Putin has slowed but not reversed a lot of negative demographic trends, the brain and talent drain has been horrific, and the country has no industries that are competitive globally other than weapons - but even that is under severe pressure from Chinese manufacturers. The country is living off oil and gas, but that is running out. Basically we are jockeying with the Chinese to carve out as much of the old Russian sphere of influence as we can - a lot like the Russians, British and French jockeyed to carve up the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. It's the new Great Game. Who knows, maybe it was Yanukovich's decision in September to sell 5% of Ukraine's arable land to China that triggered the need for Western intervention.

https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/united-press-international-china-buys-5-percent-of-ukraines-land-329709.html

We are not going to let China take Eurasia.

Peter the Shark said...

Indeed, for most of Poland's history, large parts of the Ukraine were Poland.

Considering the number of cafes and restaurants named "Lwow" or "Old Galicia" you see in Poland, I am a little surprised how little revanchist sentiment there seems to be there. Even the Right wing seems to have no interest in taking back the city that used to be the literary capital of Poland for centuries. I suppose that shows just how damaged Poland was by WWII.

Anonymous said...

"I doubt it. Russia is a dying country. The Deep State is playing a long-term game and probably doing better than you think. It is obvious that Russia is slowly collapsing. Putin has slowed but not reversed a lot of negative demographic trends, the brain and talent drain has been horrific, and the country has no industries that are competitive globally other than weapons - but even that is under severe pressure from Chinese manufacturers. The country is living off oil and gas, but that is running out. Basically we are jockeying with the Chinese to carve out as much of the old Russian sphere of influence as we can - a lot like the Russians, British and French jockeyed to carve up the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. It's the new Great Game. Who knows, maybe it was Yanukovich's decision in September to sell 5% of Ukraine's arable land to China that triggered the need for Western intervention."

This kind of armchair demographic analysis is dumb. Every country has demographic problems to contend with. Your ability, and the ability of the "deep state," to predict the distant future based on this analysis (or on any other kind) is extremely limited.

Anonymous said...

"but I keep stressing that the real villains of this piece, the real troublemakers and instigators of conflict is the EU."

There is a lot of truth in that but it's not the whole deal.

Various Jewish oligarchs have been running their destabilizing "color" schemes in Russia and Ukraine for years trying to create trouble that would eventually lead to an opportunity like this.

Then - as you rightly say - the idiots (literally) that run the EU blindly rushed in to make the mini crisis into a major one and then finally the official USUK diplomats stepped in to make sure their cousins in the Ukraine got all the critical jobs.

Although there is a caveat over whether the oligarchs are running ahead by themselves or are working in tandem with official USUK policy.

.

"I doubt it. Russia is a dying country."

The neocons are trying very hard to kill it that's for sure.

5371 said...

The TFR of whites in Russia is now higher than the TFR of whites in blue-state America.

Anonymous said...

"We are not going to let China take Eurasia."


Who is "we?"

Peter the Shark said...

This kind of armchair demographic analysis is dumb.

Demographic trends are just one element. People can smell rot, just as it was obvious to everyone in the 19th century that the Ottoman Empire was dying. I've spent a lot of time in Russia and China. Russia is a basket case. I don't think Russia stands a chance in the Far East, and the reality is Russian leadership is completely clueless about China. It makes a lot of sense for European states to try to control as much of Eurasia as they can. Arguably the US could just stay out of the whole mess, I agree.

Anonymous said...

If Russia is dying, Ukraine is already dead.

Here is the chart of Russia vs. Ukraine natural population growth. (Created by Mark Adomanis.)

Anonymous said...

Peter the Shark:

Demographic trends are just one element.

They are a big element, and they are entirely artificial. The economic war on Russia and Ukraine since 1991 by American neoliberals has cost the lives of tens of millions Russians and Ukraninans. Between 1970 and 1990, Russia and Ukraine gained 24 million inhabitants, but from 1990 to 2010, they lost 12 million. That is as large a loss as in World War II.

The neoliberals would love nothing more than to see the total depopulation of Russia, Siberia, and Ukraine, and the replacement of their current population with Chinese, Turks and Asiatics.

5371 said...

One must know very little about demography or geography to think China needs or wants to expand into the Russian east.

Seamus said...

"Actually impeached and deposed by the national legislature, but it's so much fun to pretend otherwise."

The procedures set forth in article 111 of the Ukrainian constitution for impeachment and removal of the president were not followed.

Anonymous said...

Where is James Baker when we need him?

Anonymous said...

5371:"The TFR of whites in Russia is now higher than the TFR of whites in blue-state America."


Nothing to boast about, dear boy.

Anonymous said...

Kennen on Christianity:

His views were rooted in history, philosophy and — somewhat surprisingly to me — faith. Writing on Good Friday, 1980, he composed a beautiful paean to the life and legacy of Jesus Christ: “Most human events yield to the erosion of time. . . . The greatest, most amazing, exception to this generalization . . . occurred . . . on the hill of Golgotha. . . . A man, a Jew, some sort of dissident religious prophet, was crucified in company with two common thieves . . . . In the teachings of this man were two things: first the principle of charity of love . . . but secondly, the possibility of redemption in the face of self-knowledge and penitence. . . . The combination of these two things: charity and redemption . . . inspired an entire vast civilization, created a great art, erected a hundred thousand magnificent churches, . . . shaped and disciplined the minds and the values of many generations — placed, in short, its creative stamp on one of the greatest of all flowerings of the human spirit.”

Anonymous said...

Kennen on localism:

In keeping with a long tradition of conservatism, Kennan mourned the loss of small communities with their sense of common purpose. In 1938, while working at the State Department, he took a brief leave and bicycled through rural Wisconsin, the state he grew up in, and recalled how the small villages he moved through had often rallied together, in the wake of floods, hurricanes and war, and how modern life, with its emphasis on individualism, was eroding that sense of solidarity. Seventeen years later, he surveyed his country — the booming, urbanizing America of the 1950s — with disgust: “I could leave it without a pang: the endless streams of cars, the bored, set faces behind the windshield, the chrome, the asphalt, the advertising, the television sets, the filling stations, the hot-dog stands, the barren business centers, the suburban brick boxes, the country clubs, the bars and grills, the empty activity.”

Anonymous said...

Kennen's racial views:

Writing on a flight to Los Angeles in 1978, Kennan thinks about how few white faces he will see when he lands and laments the decline of people “of British origin, from whose forefathers the constitutional structure and political ideals of the early America once emerged.” Instead, he predicts, Americans are destined to “melt into a vast polyglot mass, . . . one huge pool of indistinguishable mediocrity and drabness.” Kennan at times displayed conventional racism. His views on South Africa were strongly shaped by his feeling that blacks were simply not capable of handling liberty and democracy. “I would expect to see within five or 10 years’ time,” he wrote in 1990, “only desperate attempts at emigration on the parts of whites, and strident appeals for American help from an African regime unable to feed its own people from the resources of a ruined economy.” But for the most part, Kennan’s racism was a product of his conservatism, which is to say that he was profoundly mistrustful of the modern multiethnic ­nation-state with its “mingling of the ­races.” He did not look down on the Chinese, Indians, Russians or Jews, believing that they would succeed better in their own coherent communities than in a mixed-up melting pot.

Anonymous said...

Kennen on Russian imperialism:

This acute sense of realism pervades all of Kennan’s diplomatic observations. In 1944, having dinner with the Polish prime minister, who had received encouraging words of support from the Russians for the country’s independence, Kennan was sure that no matter what anyone said, the Poles would end up badly. “The jealous and intolerant eye of the Kremlin can distinguish, in the end, only vassals and enemies, and the neighbors of Russia, if they do not wish to be one, must reconcile themselves to being the other.”

Anonymous said...

Kennen on America's future:

He then went on to reflect on America, for which he could muster no empathy at all. He saw in it a land consumed by “unrestrained decadence,” a “pathological preoccupation with sex and violence, the weird efforts to claim for homosexuality the status of a proud, noble and promising way of life” and, finally, perhaps most menacing for him, the curse of political correctness, which meant “the total loss of a sense of humor.” That was his reaction to the booming 1990s.

Anonymous said...

"Nothing but winning the Vietnam War and driving a mortal wound into worldwide communism by exploiting the USSR China rift, right"

America lost the Vietnam war, it did not achieve what it intended, because it was communist tanks that in the end conquered Saigon.

As for communism, it depends on what you view the exact threat, that led so many to fear it. From what I read, the fear of communism was of its Godlessness, the end of nation states, a powerful central state, end of traditional societies and a surveillance state. Those things are clearly not not suffering mortal wounds. As for corporations not having being taken over by government, well they don't have to be, the relationship between government and big business is so incestuous that nobody would notice if government did actually own these corporations.

fondatori said...

"The other big issue that is hard to explore is how much control do Obama and Kerry really have over the more aggressive elements of the Deep State, such as the Nuland-Kagans and Soros."

They have direct control. Nuland is an ambassador and could be recalled or transferred to another country at any time. The same thing could happen to any governmental employee. This might lead to 'deep state' moaning in the press about the usual felonies but such people are relatively powerless compared to their bosses, if the bosses choose to assert themselves.

Deep state private actors like Soros can have influence through NGOs and the like but if they were seen to work against US policy they could be specifically officially or unofficially denounced, their assets in the foreign country could be 'frozen' etc.

Obama and Kerry are responsible for the actions of their agents. If they are not competent enough to reign these people in then they are still responsible as they should never have taken the high offices and great powers they have if they don't have the capability to exercise the power with something resembling responsibility.

Peter the Shark said...

The neoliberals would love nothing more than to see the total depopulation of Russia, Siberia, and Ukraine, and the replacement of their current population with Chinese, Turks and Asiatics.

Wake up. The Russians brought this upon themselves. The neoliberals are now fighting a rearguard action against the Chinese, the Russians have proved how useless they are on that count. Most neoliberals don't seem to take Muslims or Black Africans seriously as a threat, I agree. I suppose they assume that high IQ people will always manage to control those populations.

Mr. Anon said...

"Peter the Shark said...

""Indeed, for most of Poland's history, large parts of the Ukraine were Poland.""

Considering the number of cafes and restaurants named "Lwow" or "Old Galicia" you see in Poland, I am a little surprised how little revanchist sentiment there seems to be there. Even the Right wing seems to have no interest in taking back the city that used to be the literary capital of Poland for centuries. I suppose that shows just how damaged Poland was by WWII."

Perhaps the Poles realize that it is in their own interest to have a buffer-state between them and Russia.

Anonymous said...

"Various Jewish oligarchs have been running their destabilizing "color" schemes in Russia and Ukraine for years trying to create trouble that would eventually lead to an opportunity like this."

This isn't based on facts. The oligarchs don't stand to gain from instability. They have been friendly to either Yanukovych or Tymoshenko, because they keep things stable and the money flowing.

"Demographic trends are just one element. People can smell rot, just as it was obvious to everyone in the 19th century that the Ottoman Empire was dying. I've spent a lot of time in Russia and China. Russia is a basket case. I don't think Russia stands a chance in the Far East, and the reality is Russian leadership is completely clueless about China. It makes a lot of sense for European states to try to control as much of Eurasia as they can. Arguably the US could just stay out of the whole mess, I agree."

Russian cluelessness about China is a big problem for that country. The natural solution would be a Russo-American alliance against China, but there's nobody in Washington put can make deals with. Besides, I'm sure even if they're thinking about China, they know the Americans will have to support them against China.

But the idea that Russia is dying is silly. It has always been a somewhat backward, quasi-Asiatic country outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg. And it has always remained a fearsome player on the world stage.

jody said...

the demographics of russia are not good, but that seems to be the only argument detractors of russia can come up with.

japan is fine - they'll remain japanese! but russia is a dying, dead country...with a higher birthrate than japan, a higher total population, complete and total energy independence with over 100 years of reserves, a huge well developed military, sovereign independence from the US to the point where they can actually invade countries and the US won't try to stop them, thousands of ICBMs to protect themselves from every other nation, and so on and so forth. oh, and russia has almost no debt. and the debt they do have could be reduced to zero in 1 year if they just wanted to pay it down.

none of which japan has. the US literally controls japan and tells it what to do, and japan has no energy, has to import EVERYTHING it needs, and has a gigantic trade deficit now. the massive trade deficit japan has picked up after 2011 should alarm japan defenders.

it has no ICBMs and can't defend itself, and a colossal mountain of debt so big, it's the largest in the world. oh, and they're deliberately devaluing their currency in order to actually create inflation, since they've had deflation for 20 years. but hey, japan will be fine! japan will stay japanese!

well, so will russia. their birth rate actually went up recently. above europeans in the US. they're nationalistic, and racist. and so are their leaders. they are resisting the cultural marxists.

not that i'm playing any side here. i'm playing the devil's advocate. oh, so russia is clueless about china and doesn't realize china is a major threat to them in the future? so what does that make japan? japan is directly threatened by china RIGHT NOW, who clearly would like to overrun japan and invade their islands. and i'm not talking about some rocks. and china has their missiles aimed right at japan. so who is actually under more threat from china here? russia has 20 times as many ICBMs as china.

russia's future is not bad, all things considered. hey, this ain't NPR, but i'm just saying. it's funny when the 'russia is dying' meme comes up. what does that make the UK, or germany, or france then? they're in worse long term shape. less prospects for economic growth, native populations in literal numerical decline, more prospects for racial revolution, more prospects for muslim invasion, so on and so forth.

Anonymous said...

Heck the U.S. needed a better foreign policy team... back in 1945.

Turns out that the Yalta Conference, the one where FDR and Churchill gave up the store to Stalin... was actually held in Crimea of all places!

Reg Cæsar said...

Between 1970 and 1990, Russia and Ukraine gained 24 million inhabitants, but from 1990 to 2010, they lost 12 million. --анонімний

That's assuming Soviet census figures are more trustworthy than their agricultural and industrial output statistics. Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the dacha on it.

A gain of 12m from 1970-2010 is pretty reasonable. Also, there was immigration from the other "republics" during the first half of your period, and return and emigration during the latter.

Anonymous said...

Spanish Morocco is under an immigration siege lately:


Why is Spain hanging on to territory in Morocco instead of ceding it to Morocco and remove the incentive for africans and arabs to overwhelm europe?

Mountain Maven said...

What exactly did any American actors do vis a vis Ukraine besides flap their gums?

Anonymous said...

"Why is Spain holding on to territory in Morocco instead of ceding it to Morocco and remove the incentive for africans and arabs to overwhelm europe?"

The incentive is not the two very tiny Spanish enclaves in Morocco. The incentive is that Europe is a prosperous and successful continent and Arab and African countries are political and economic basketcases. They want to help themselves to Europe's riches. Think of the two enclaves as forward defensive positions just outside the main firebase.

Steve Sailer said...

I believe one of the Spanish enclaves in Morocco is the other Pillar of Hercules across from Gibraltar. It's a good military spot in case you want to sink surface shipping going in and out of the Mediterranean. And presumably, Spain wouldn't give it up unless they got Gibraltar from Britain.

Reg Cæsar said...

These bits of Africa were taken from the Barbary pirates by the teenage Prince Henry the Navigator and his brothers, in a most daring raid. Spain inherited them from a short-lived union with Portugal.

But were they important to the Spaniards, or just unimportant to the Portuguese?

Anonymous said...

"Russia is clueless about China".


Yeah, right. After living right next door to the Chinese for countless centuries, one would think that they know a damn sight more about China than you do.

Anonymous said...

"This isn't based on facts. The oligarchs don't stand to gain from instability. They have been friendly to either Yanukovych or Tymoshenko, because they keep things stable and the money flowing."

I mean the oligarchs in America that have been funding the color revolutions around the world to install governments that will let them loot the country.

Anonymous said...

Reg Caesar:

A gain of 12m from 1970-2010 is pretty reasonable. Also, there was immigration from the other "republics" during the first half of your period, and return and emigration during the latter.

Please be serious. France, with around 1/4 of the total population of Russia and Ukraine at the time, gained 12 million people between 1970 and 2012.

Internal migration in the Soviert Union went both ways, with minorities moving into Russia, and Russian colonizing places like the Stans, however, worth noting is that the share of Russians in Russia has been constant at around 80% for many decades, so this is essentially a non-factor. Since 1990, Russians have been leaving the Stans and moving back to Russia, yet the population of Russia was still falling and the balance of Russians is constant. For external migration, this is really a minor factor. Probably a couple hundred thousand per year leave - not enough to account for a deficit of 36 million people.

Your final theory, that Soviet statistics were faked (i.e. inflated), seems highly unlikely. The Soviet statistics clearly show the huge population losses from the Civil War, Holodomor, and World War II, none of which reflects well on the Soviet Union, and the general trend from the last Tsarist Census to 1990 is in line with another country that has experienced a similar level and cause of population disasters in the past century - Germany, with its huge losses from World War I, World War II, and the post-war population expulsions and massacres of the east German population in Prussia Pommerania, and Silesia.

The fact is that Russia is the only country with the intelligence and education of its populace, technological capability and self-contained riches of resources capable of opposing America in the world, therefore America's elites have determined that Russia must be ground into dust because they cannot envision a world with more than one country on top, or a world where all European people "From Vancouver to Vladivostok" (and from "Santiago to Sydney") might work cooperatively on their own economic and cultural development.

Anonymous said...

You'd think at some point the neocons would apologize for being wrong about literally everything they have ever said for decades. For totally discrediting the Republican party, for getting us involved with boondoggles in the middle east, for fomenting hopeless revolutions in godforsaken countries that have nothint to do with America. But they are hopeless idiots, and apparently some of their borderline retarded drones are still keeping the faith and whining in isteve's comments.

Reg Cæsar said...

You'd think at some point the neocons would apologize for being wrong about literally everything they have ever said for decades. --anon

OK, Norm and Midge had it wrong when they argued with Gore about foreign policy, and about US history. But if you think Norm and Midge had it wrong when they argued with Gore about buggery, then I have to wonder how you spend your time between comments.

Vidal not only held the wrong position, he often was literally in the wrong position. Literally literally.

Don't be so obsessed with one overpaid, overpowered, paranoid, manic-depressive, clannish Democratic-voting 3%, that you neglect that other overpaid, overpowered, paranoid, manic-depressive, cliquish Democratic-voting 3%!

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

You'd think at some point the neocons would apologize for being wrong about literally everything they have ever said for decades."

Being a shameless sociopath means never having to say your sorry.