The West on the wrong path

Handelsblatt (Germany) ^ | 08 August 2014 | Gabor Steingart

[Lorianne]

In view of the events in Ukraine, the government and many media have switched from level-headed to agitated. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the width of a sniper scope. The politics of escalation does not have a realistic goal – and harms German interests. ___

Düsseldorf. Every war is accompanied by a kind of mental mobilization: war fever. Even smart people are not immune to controlled bouts of this fever. “This war in all its atrociousness is still a great and wonderful thing. It is an experience worth having“ rejoiced Max Weber in 1914 when the lights went out in Europe. Thomas Mann felt a “cleansing, liberation, and a tremendous amount of hope“.

Even when thousands already lay dead on the Belgian battle fields, the war fever did not subside. Exactly 100 years ago, 93 painters, writers, and scientists composed the “Call to the world of culture.“ Max Liebermann, Gerhart Hauptmann, Max Planck, Wilhelm Röntgen, and others encouraged their countrymen to engage in cruelty towards their neighbor: “Without German militarism, German culture would have been swept from the face of the earth a long time ago. The German armed forces and the German people are one. This awareness makes 70 million Germans brothers without prejudice to education, status, or party.“

In view of the war events in the Crimean and eastern Ukraine, the heads of states and governments of the West suddenly have no more questions and all the answers. The US Congress is openly discussing arming Ukraine. The former security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends arming the citizens there for house-to-house and street combat. The German Chancellor, as it is her habit, is much less clear but no less ominous: “We are ready to take severe measures.“

[Agog]

Do you agree with Gabor Steingart?

[Apparatchik]

This guy could be the foreign minister of any European country. His best lines:

But every act requires context. And the German context is that we are a society on probation which may not act as if violations of international law started with the events in the Crimean.

The first step is what Brandt called “compassion“, i.e. the ability to see the world through the eyes of the others.

Even if we could succeed: what good would Russia be on its knees? How can you want to live together in the European house with a humiliated people whose elected leadership is treated like a pariah and whose citizens you might have to support in the coming winter.

I read through the column twice and cannot for the life of me figure what he thinks we should do with Russia, except to empathize with Putin. This bozo is evidently worried about the impact of sanctions on Russia on his own portfolio. I weep for the future of Europe run by a multitude of Chamberlains.

[OldGuard1]

No, she lost all respect from me when she slapped that police officer.

[nathanbedford]

The problem with the author's "compassion" approach is simply that Barack Obama has already pushed the reset button with the same results as were obtained by Jimmy Carter.

Nations do not respond to "compassion" they presumably act in their perceived national interest. It is the job of the head of America's foreign policy, the President of the United States, to fashion a policy which either through carrot or sticks brings the behavior of Russia into alignment with America's national interests.

There are some governments, however, so bellicose or so determined to have their way that they cannot be managed by conventional means. We are witnessing that right now in the Muslim world just as we witnessed it in Germany in 1939. When the Berlin wall went up, it was not Willy Brandt's "compassion" that kept Russian tanks rolling through Berlin, it was American thermonuclear warheads. The Russians are peculiarly programmed to ignore carrots but they strictly respect a nuclear stick as they did during the Cuban missile crisis.

The most dangerous thing any nation can do in dealing with potential adversaries is to encourage doubt as to ultimate willingness to wage war when certain (red) lines are crossed - as we did in Syria and elsewhere. But it is also necessary to provide that adversary with another face-saving way and, hopefully, profitable way to avoid war which are also in accordance with American national interests.

America has not erred because of truculence but because of timidity and confusion or, worse, because it's commander-in-chief likes it this way.

[Lorianne]

He makes some pragmatic points but in the end I think it’s a moot point what Germans think/do about the Russia/Ukraine situation. They have only so many card they can play (as the author hints at but doesn’t say outright).

Russia has some deep systemic problems. Not enough population and an aging population. There is much alcoholism and years of little to no experience with entrepreneurship. On the plus side they do have energy resources and they could conceivably overcome their population issues with immigration. Putin is playing a risky game ... time is not on his side and who knows what events could overtake him (like ISIS in the middle east). But by long term thinking I think he is right. If he can pull it off without, like I said, events overtaking him. He needs more young people on his side.

Steingart is writing from an extremely short term thinking perspective. He is also right, short term, that it is not good for Germany to upset Russia. Not good for trade, etc.

I also think his tea party remarks are completely wrong, but that is par for the course for almost anyone writing in media today. They all just echo each other and do not understand anything about the tea party movement in America.

[Gene Eric]

>> Do you agree with Gabor Steingart?

Unfortunately, no. I have a passport.

I don’t mind being insulted through generalizations, but I’m not obligated to consume it. Too bad — the article had potential.

[Wuli]

A meek sounding article, with a vile streak underneath, arrived at from the many fictions it weaves as historical facts, made fictitious by the other half of the facts and contexts it excludes from its analysis.

[Billthedrill]

We cannot afford to look at Russia through the eyes of the American Tea Party.

Every mistake starts with a mistake in thinking.

These two lines are juxtaposed, which I think is ironic and awfully funny.

The elite in Washington started hearing words that had never been heard in politics before: Compassion. Change through rapprochement. Dialog. Reconciliation of interests.

Really? Compassion and dialog were invented in 1964? Who knew?

And so the silliness proceeds. I find it difficult to view anyone with such a stereotypical viewpoint of American politics to be credible in other international politics. This isn't all that far from calling the Russians a group of fur-hatted Cossacks. Air-headed celebrities can indulge in this sort of thing (and be laughed at for it), but supposedly serious political commentators need to do better.