It will be an uphill battle (you’re missing a lot of crucial syllables–not only Crantz but Guilden and Stern, too). Just don’t keep at it too long, lest we be forced to observe that a noble mind is here o’erthrown…
People vastly overestimate Russia as a contemporary threat. They are a convenient boogeyman and not much more. The biggest issue facing the so-called West is internal divisions and the ability of modern communications to amplify differences.
Now, to be fair, Russia has recognized just that. Which is why it’s not the fact that Trump is president that is problematic. It’s the fact that it was possible for a Trump presidency that is troubling.
And so Russia is attacking us by amplifying our internal divisions. Which makes them a legitimate threat.
I might just be misunderstanding you but what specifically is it that is troubling about the possibilty of a Trump presidency that is distinct from the reality of a Trump presidency?
Russia is very much a contemporary threat, just not so much an existential one like they were in the USSR days. Russian efforts have successfully promoted internal divisions in the US and other Western countries, such as France and Hungary, through both cyber efforts and indirectly funding some opposition parties like the National Front in France. Russian forces in both the Crimea and in the Donbass have kept a low-level perpetual war alive in Ukraine and ensured that the slow moving U.S. effort to draw Ukraine into NATO one day is on hold indefinitely. Russian forces in Syria have enabled Assad from being trapped in an unstable stalemate and allowed him to decisively take the upper hand in the Syrian civil war and therefore allowed Iran to keep Syria (and indirectly Hezbollah) in its column. This is a threat to U.S. efforts in Syria and the whole region to protect Israel and keep the peace with Iran, particularly now that Trump has even more firmly brought the U.S. down on the Sunni side of the Sunni-Shia proxy wars.
To sum up, Russia is a threat to U.S. elections and internal stability, a threat to U.S. plans and goals with NATO, and a threat to U.S. policy in Syria and the Middle East at large. They’re just not a threat to militarily conquer and occupy the U.S. “Red Dawn” style and mostly not a threat to wipe us out with nuclear missiles these days. Thinking of threats using the latter two criteria only is old fashioned.
My fear is that they’re not desperate and in their final throws, but that they figured out they can lie like crazy and warp reality to their advantage as much as they want. It’s all optics and elephants now, far removed from previous norms (which weren’t all that stellar in the first place). Anyone who is against them is subject to the two minutes of hate rule, and a significant portion of the voting population will participate and amplify.
Early 90s talk radio made space for Fox. Now we have all that plus Sinclair. Alex Jones and Breitbart are at the vanguard of ‘truth’ now.
The GOP isn’t desperately making their final moves; they’re gleefully wielding their power.
-
What sort of threat Russia actually is, is to no small degree immaterial to the question and the answer at hand, which, if I may rephrase, is asking what Russia would hope to gain from an effort to keep HRC out and get Trump in the presidency.
-
But moving on to the next subject you raise and connecting it - Russia is a threat precisely because they are so faded, and they resent that. At the risk of Godwininzing, that was Germany after the Great War. Russia’s economic and diplomatic influence is a fraction of what it was and that is mainly by way of their control over natural gas and oil, which is diminishing. The economically engaged, even entangled, world game is one they know they cannot be even a major, let alone a dominant, player in longterm. They have regional military strength though, and the ability to undermine the strengths of others.
Yes, to increase internal divisions, both within and between other countries, partly by leveraging the power of modern communications to disseminate disinformation, to troll, and to amplify those divisions. To diminish the attraction of Western values of democratic representation, free speech, and rights, as a model for all societies to sign on to.
The reality of the Trump presidency is horrible, and yes, that such is even possible is troubling. The reality that Russia is across the world succeeding (with Trump’s help) in diminishing the ideas and ideals that America represents when at its best is even more troubling.
The ideals?
The USA spent the post-war period resisting democracy around the world, in favour of supporters dictators beholden to it.
The only ‘values’ the developing world saw for 50 years - central and south America, Asia, Middle east, North Africa - were CIA trained death squads political assassinations.
I remain skeptical of the claim that Cohen went to Prague. When the evidence comes out, we’ll see. And if it turns out that it wasn’t there, then let’s see if you’ll retract this gloating post.
Only?
Indeed that is a large part of the line that Russia is selling, and it would be foolish to be blind to the warts. America has certainly not always been at its best and can be better, should be better, needs leaders and voters who demand we be better and who inspire us to be so. Yet even with the warts, she’s still the prettiest girl at the dance.
Well knock me over with a feather.
And if it is, what will you do?
Do you believe that Russia invaded and illegally annexed part of Ukraine?
Too good.
Six months ago you were almost certain that Cohen hadn’t been to Prague. Now you’re merely skeptical. This shift in your position demonstrates that your certainty was misplaced and that your post hasn’t aged well. There are no future events that could give me reason to apologize for pointing out that fact.
So, if it turns out that Cohen met with Russians in the Czech Republic but the meeting technically didn’t happen in Prague, who claims victory?
The Russians, as usual.
FP will claim victory.
He’s claiming victory right now for future events that will prove his poorly aged post was actually correct.
There’s no conceivable outcome in which FP will not claim victory.
This is completely illogical.
If it turns out that the report is incorrect (whether there’s not really any such information, or that the information is less than conclusive) then my original confidence will turn out to have been correct.
By contrast, your crowing about the McClatchy story will be shown to have been premature.
And if the report is correct, what will you do?
What do you want?
Tell you what, I’ll march up and down outside my office with a placard saying I WAS WRONG!!! GYRATE AND A BUNCH OF OTHER GUYS WERE RIGHT!!! TRUMP SUCKS!!!. Plus, I’ll wear a sackcloth for 40 days and 40 nights?
Does that do it?
Hey, we’re all just kicking stuff around here. If I’m wrong I’m wrong. I don’t think I am, but of course you never know.
But what I’m not doing is gloating based on a report in one source that “there’s evidence” for something.