Posted on 02/11/2014 10:01:10 PM PST by cunning_fish
An unfortunate legacy of the Cold War is the negative attitude some American conservatives yet harbor toward Russia. Conditioned for decades to see Russia and the Soviet Union as synonymous, they still view post-communist Russia as a threat. They forget that Tsarist Russia was the most conservative great power, a bastion of Christian monarchy loathed by revolutionaries, Jacobins, and democrats. Joseph de Maistre was not alone among 19th-century conservatives in finding refuge and hope in Russia.
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is emerging once more as the leading conservative power. As we witnessed in Russia’s rescue of President Obama from the corner into which he had painted himself on Syria, the Kremlin is today, as the New York Times reports, “Establishing Russia’s role in world affairs not based on the dated Cold War paradigm but rather on its different outlook, which favors state sovereignty and status quo stability over the spread of Western-style democracy.”
In his own Times op-ed on Syria, Putin wrote, “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it.” Sen. Robert A. Taft and Russell Kirk also doubted it.
Moscow appears to understand better than Washington that the driving foreign-policy requirement of the 21st century is the preservation of the state in the face of Fourth Generation war waged by non-state entities, such as those fighting on the rebels’ side in Syria. Russia has rightly upbraided Washington for destroying states, including Iraq and Libya.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
The prayers worked.
I’m not sure about that title. I have read some of William Lind’s articles and Mr. Lind describes cultural Marxism as political correctness, while classical Marxism is class warfare, attacking the bourgeois; etc. The typical “Das Kapital” stuff.
You have underestimated Obama. He is much more dangerous than Putin because he has more power. I would honestly prefer Putin in the White House. I trust him more.
Alexey Komov, Russian pro family advocate
His current “American Conservative Center for Public Transportation” is also funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
Moscow appears to understand better than Washington that the driving foreign-policy requirement of the 21st century is the preservation of the state in the face of Fourth Generation war waged by non-state entities, such as those fighting on the rebels’ side in Syria.
I think much of it is what "appears". The other side of it is that the Russian Federation inherits and promotes its continuation of the Soviet Union to the detriment of the Russian Nation; it remains just like the Soviet Union unable to build a rule of law distinct of the rule of the ruling party and generally is suffering from the Soviet mentality infecting its people as much as it infects its government. The desire to lecture the West is one of them.
None of that is to dispute the salutary aspects of Russian Federation's corrective of American foreign policy in the late presidencies, especially in thwarting Obama's aggression in Syria.
I submit it to my esteemed ping list. What do you think?
If you want to be on this right wing, monarchy, paleolibertarianism and nationalism ping list, but are not, please let me know. If you are on it and want to be off, also let me know. This ping list is not used for Catholic-Protestant debates.
What the New York Times euphemistically calls 'Western style democracy' would more accurately be defined as 'European style socialism'.
Conservatism is not merely a philosophy which picks and chooses among issues that grow like weeds favoring some and opposing others on an ad hoc basis. Rather, conservatism is a coherent philosophy grounded in the rights of the individual, secured by a rule of law, and guaranteed by a Constitution.
All that the supra-national, marxist at roots, KGB by methods, Russian Federation lacks. You do, however, mischaracterize in the raminder of your post, the Russian Federation's law against homosexual propaganda to minors as homophobic; it is, of course a gross stretch to compare it to physical extermination of gays.
Whether Putin ideologically, and especially in the context of history, is closer to Hitler than to Jefferson is a good question, but I dislike the comparisons of everything we don't like to Hitler so much as to propose to avoid the Nazi slur.
Good points.
Oh, and BTW that’s Pat Buchanan’s organization that pulled in $150K from the Reckefeller—and put this Marxist in charge of it.
Let’s not get carried away here. Russia is corrupt and anti-democratic. It is not governed by the rule of law. You can still disappear if you disagree with the government. It takes “conservative” positions in a couple areas, like defending religion. Let’s not let that cloud our judgment.
Russia still has a ways to go, no doubt. It is not in their political traditions to have a US-Style democratic republic. Centuries of Czars followed by 70+ years of Bolshevism.
But it will take several generations before Russia is truly ready for it, what they need for now is stability, which Putin provides, but I do believe, at least, they are headed in the right direction, which is more than I can say for this country, right now.
“...Moscow has reclaimed its 19th-century conservative role...”
I think that’s stretching it a bit....
Many things can be said about Putin pro and con; but the guy loves his country, is a Russian patriot and is doing what HE thinks best to ensure it’s survival from internal threats (the lunatic left fringe of his party) as well as external threats (moslem infiltration and Chechen terrorism).
Personally, I believe he’s “KGB” through and through (FSB now, I think they call themselves). A lifetime of training and indoctrination doesn’t disappear overnight just because the party name changes. He’s an intelligence operative, and knows how to mind-mess with both foes and pretend-friends (as we are now) to get what he wants.
He’s still a product of his country’s recent past, and I think we put ourselves in danger by dealing with and regarding him otherwise.
Putin would have served the Czar, as faithfully as he served the Bolsheviks. It’s not ideological with him.
He knows Communism sucked....but at the same time, he appreciated the power on the world stage they achieved.
“...he appreciated the power ...”
That’s human nature, brother... for sure, for sure.
“...It’s not ideological with him...”
I’m not sure of that yet. I just think we should hold him at arm’s length, like Reagan did with Gorbaschev. “Trust but Verify”, you know?
Tell you what - I’ll believe Russia goes “right” when they recognize that their citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed.. When Ivan, Yevgenny, and Boris can walk into “Mikhailovich’s Guns, Ammo, and Borscht Shop” and can buy their own used AK47, AK74, AK106, etc., and surplus ammo to plink with.
That would be a step in the right direction.
Nonsense. Russia’s keeping with its past which is Leftist, despite what all the professors say.
They want to control people. What do a monarchy, dictatorship, progressivism, communism, Russia and Obama have in common?
The answer isn’t conservative.
The old German saying remains true:
“Russia remains Russia” (Russland bleibt Russland)
Putin made, in my mind, a very good choice early on to blend the “best of Russia” into modern Russia. That is, an ala carte selection of what he thinks was the best of Czarist Russia and Soviet Russia. Importantly, this is mostly symbolic. The critical thing will be what organizational structure he creates, and how well it functions with his successors.
Running Russia was never easy. The Czars were balanced with the noble landlords, who owned large country agricultural estates. But everything of moment happened in Moscow. Over time, this over-centralization became a problem.
Peter the Great build a new capital, St. Petersburg, and tried to embrace European ideas, that ended up making Russia a half-European, half-Asiatic nation. A wise choice because by World War I, Russia was the fourth largest industrial power in the world.
Had the Russian any other form of government than communists, they might have very well dominated the world; but the communists were so incredibly wasteful and inefficient that they kept Russia down. However, even they had one semi-reasonable idea, borrowed from the US. The idea of the balance of power in the government.
However, the balance was odd, between the communist party, the Soviet Army, and the KGB. When one got too strong, the other two would ban together, to cut it down to size.
Because of WWII, the Soviet Army was the most powerful, and only in Brezhnev’s later years were they finally cut down to size in a huge purge of their commanders. Since then, the KGB dominated, and with the fall of the communist party, the KGB effectively took over much of the inner workings of the government. Putin was a KGB man.
Russia is not easy to manage. Fortunately for them, their leader loves his country, is patriotic, and wants to improve it. There are worse things you can get in leaders.
I prefer Churchill's statement, which is just as true today....
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
1950’s: America, pray for the conversion of Russia
***
I remember, as a kid attending 12 years of Catholic school in the 1950s and 1960s, praying for the conversion of Russia. And I thought about all of those prayers when the USSR broke up.
We shall see, I suppose, but I don’t think we can trust Putin or the rest of the Russian mafia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.