I notice a lot of commotion again about whether the Russians
interfered in the U.S. election, and I think “So what?” Did more electoral votes go Trump’s way than
Clinton’s, or didn’t they? Each of the voters had their reasons for voting as
they did. The Russians didn’t cast those votes. They didn’t count those votes.
They didn’t proclaim the count. Besides, if we talk about nations that have
interfered with foreign governments, which nation comes first to mind? Russia?
Puhleeeze.
Who is it that has jockeyed for world domination? After WWII
ended, what nation opened military bases all around the world? What nation parked nuclear weapons on other
nation’s doorsteps and then refused to remove them even when those other nations
were putting forth peace initiatives one after the other? Something changed when Truman moved into the
White House. Roosevelt had been trusting of the Soviets; Truman was not. So far
as I can tell, he was confrontational and insisted that the USA have dominance
in high powered weaponry. Eisenhower ramped up weapons production. Kennedy
brought a bit of sanity to the table, as did Nixon and Ford later. Carter
partook in the SALT negotiations. But Ray-Gun undid the benefits of that
treaty, and no president since has really done anything significant to wind
back the clock on the escalation of nuclear arms. I don’t think Putin has or will ever be as
threatening to world peace as has each of several U.S. presidents.
Gordon, WOW, Really? It is a big deal when ANY nation interferes in another nation's electoral process - It shouldn't happen - EVER! And, yes, unfortunately, the United States has gone down that road before too (and we were wrong to do so). In a representative democracy, elections must be free of any outside interference or influence to be considered valid in the eyes of the electorate. Anything less than that, undermines confidence in both the process and the results. And I've never seen anyone make a successful argument justifying some behavior by pointing out that everyone engages in that behavior.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I must say that I find your assessment of the foreign policy of U.S. president's since FDR a bit myopic. While giving FDR high marks for his ingenuity and political prowess, it is the considered opinion of a majority of historians that he was at the very least somewhat naive where the Russians were concerned (Churchill always thought so).
Beginning with Truman, it was the policy of both Democratic and Republican administrations to contain Soviet/Communist aggression/expansion/ambitions on the world stage. And, yes, they also all sought to contain the spread of nuclear weaponry. I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that this effort has prevented another world war and has probably contributed to a more stable world overall.
You can make fun of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, but Gorbachev clearly didn't think it was funny. It brought the Soviets to the negotiating table and resulted in significant reductions in the nuclear arsenals of both countries. And, Reagan's willingness to spend so much money on U.S. defenses eventually contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the winning of the Cold War initiated by Truman.
Putin is the leader of a third-rate nation which happens to have a substantial nuclear arsenal. Add to that the fact that he clearly wishes to regain the respect which his nation has lost as a consequence of all of the aforementioned facts, and I think that makes him a VERY dangerous individual.
Now, if you'd like to talk about the current occupant of the Oval Office, I would certainly be more willing to concede that he may be a greater threat to world peace than his Russian counterpart!
Yes, Really! :) I haven't seen any evidence that the Russians hacked the vote counting and reporting processes. They may have lobbied. They may have contributed funds to campaigns. I don't know. But that it just persuasion. That isn't force.
DeleteI think you don't realize that the world has caught on to America. Americans typically don't. You are such a friendly and generous people, except for a few grouches in the northeast. Great neighbors to each other. It's a fine example. But your government has long been in the business of providing security and greased opportunities for American international business interests. Which is some ways is ironic when you consider how much of corporate America is really owned by UK and French interests.
Churchill was surly towards the Russians, yes. The Russians, after WWII adopted a position of wanting military parity with the USA, but not superiority. Russian leaders were aghast at the thought of a nuclear war. And when the arms build-up reached ridiculous levels, it was Russia that made continual overtures to have both nations scale back in tandem so as to maintain parity while heading towards nuclear disarmament. It was Russia that applied for membership in NATO so that they could be a part of the effort to maintain a peaceful Europe. Of course, Eisenhower's jaw dropped and Dulles laughed, and nobody gave Russia a serious response. SALT 1 and SALT 2 were Russian initiatives so far as I can tell.
Yes, Russia left it troops in eastern Europe, even as America left theirs in western Europe.
I agree that Russia is a poor nation with a nuclear arsenal. Putin is not dangerous because he doesn't have the money to be dangerous. America does, and often has been.