The Arts Of Hybrid Wars
“The real issue is moral capitulation.” – NYT – Bret Stephens
M.N.: Is this the truth?!
Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks
NYT – Bret Stephens: “There’s no need to obsess about electoral collusion when the real issue is moral capitulation.”
M.N.: Is this the truth?!
To the list of Bret Stephen’s “explanations” of “Russia scandal” I would add one more, maybe the main one, and maybe the most troubling one: the suspicion of Trump’s personal financial interest in his pro-Russian policies and stances. In other words and in plainer English, that he was bought by Russia in some ways or fashion, as the contemporary Russian habit is in dealing with their problems: to bribe or to kill. Here they appear to do both, with the killing of the “moral” kind: undermining the trust in the American democratic values and institutions, killing America “softly”. Very much in line with the modern trends of the Psycho-Geo-Politics.
Such a comfy, cuddly, furry, (Panda cum Russian Bear, “Happy Family”, hybrid-like), Obamanite – Russian – Chinese – Putinesque – Merkelized geo-“softness”, which in plain language is called “hypocrisy”, and in most recent terms, the arts of the “hybrid wars”, and more exactly, the intelligence wars, which Putin made his main occupation and preoccupation.
“A Moral Black Hole.
The roots of the Russian elite’s discontent lie in imperial nostalgia, phantom pains of autocracy, and questionable morality. The end of communism resulted in a moral black hole—a deep spiritual and identity crisis among the elites. Corruption, alcoholism, and blurred lines between organized crime and authority reflect general alienation, recklessness, and fatalism.
Nations fail, St. Augustine argued, because peoples fail. A healthy society can correct a deficient state, but even the best-designed states will founder if they are based upon a deficient civil society.
This degradation bears directly on Russia’s conduct of its foreign policy. Those who keep calling for an engagement that will eventually transform Russia cannot see that it is the West, not Russia, that is being transformed by this contact.”
And now Bret Stephens says that the West, and America specifically, “morally capitulated”.
Is this the truth or just the journalistic hyperbole, exaggeration, or warning?
I do not know, at what stage this infection is, but it certainly is the ongoing process. How to deal with it, is another complex matter.
I do not think that The West (Culture, the way of life, modes of governing, etc.) “morally capitulated” (yet), but it is obvious that this rather entertaining subject did become an issue and the issue, in its various interpretations, and Stephen’s article is just one of these proposed interpretations.
“In many ways, we vacated a lot of competitive space in recent years and created opportunities for these revisionist powers,” McMaster said, referring to China and Russia, according to this recent report.
Essentially, I see this conflict as The West (Liberal Democracies) vs. World Organised Crime in alliance with leftist, “centrist” and rightist geo-political opportunists and their intelligence services of all the various and convenient stripes. Some of them have been already named above. And as such, if this conflict is formulated here by me correctly, it is of the prime and overwhelming concern and the interest to the FBI.
- The Real Russia Scandal – The New York Times
- Cohen about the Russian “moral black hole” – GS
- TrumPutin, the Mob, and Terrorism – By Michael Novakhov
|Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks|
|Trump denies he plans to fire Mueller|
As the Russia investigation heats up, US President Donald Trump denies he plans to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
What are the top stories today? Click to watch: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSyY1udCyYqBeDOz400FlseNGNqReKkFd
euronews: the most watched news channel in Europe
euronews is available in 13 languages: https://www.youtube.com/user/euronewsnetwork/channels
|The Real Russia Scandal – The New York Times|
Lest there be any doubt as to where the future national security adviser stood, Flynn went on to stress that Vladimir Putin “has done a lot for the Khamenei regime”; that Russia and Iran were “the two most active and powerful members of the enemy alliance”; and that the Russian president’s deep intention was to “pursue the war against us.”
All this was true. Yet by the end of the year, Flynn would be courting Russia’s ambassador to Washington and hinting at swift relief from sanctions. What gave?
What gave, it seems, was some combination of financial motives — at least $65,000 in payments by Russian-linked companies — and political ones — a new master in the person of Donald Trump, who took precisely the same gauzy view of Russia that Flynn had rejected in his book.
What about Trump’s motives? In The Washington Post on Thursday, reporters Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe and Philip Rucker offer a stunning description of the president’s curious incuriousness when it comes to the question of Russian interference in our elections. That’s followed by a catalog of all the many ways in which the American president sought to appease the Russian dictator.
Cases in point: The president still does not fully accept the verdict of his intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the election. He told Bill O’Reilly that America’s behavior was no better than Putin’s. His attorney general admitted to Congress that the administration had “probably not” taken sufficient measures to prevent future Russian meddling in elections. He explored ways to return two Russian diplomatic compounds in the United States long used for spying until they were seized by the Obama administration.
It continues: He spent the first five months in office resisting efforts to get him to publicly avow NATO’s mutual-defense commitments. He sought an “impenetrable cybersecurity unit” with Moscow until Lindsey Graham dismissed it as “pretty close” to “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” He fiercely resisted congressional efforts to impose additional sanctions on Russia; was “apoplectic” when they passed; and would have vetoed the legislation if it weren’t certain he’d be overridden. He ended American support for anti-regime moderates in Syria, paving the way for the Assad regime — and thus its Russian helpers — to consolidate their grip.
Presented with this list, the president’s craven apologists insist he’s right to try to find common ground with Russia. These are the same people who until recently were in full throat against Barack Obama for his overtures to Putin. More measured apologists say he’s merely naïve, just as Obama and Bush were at the beginning of their terms. Yet the alleged naïveté never quits: Just this week, he asked for Putin’s help on North Korea.
The better explanations are: (a) the president is infatuated with authoritarians, at least those who flatter him; (b) he’s neurotically neuralgic when it comes to the subject of his election; (c) he’s ideologically sympathetic to Putinism, with its combination of economic corporatism, foreign-policy cynicism, and violent hostility to critics; (d) he’s stupid; or (e) he’s vulnerable to Russian blackmail.
Each explanation is compatible with all the others. For my part, I choose all of the above — the first four points being demonstrable while the last is logical. But let’s have that conversation at another time. There’s no need to obsess about electoral collusion when the real issue is moral capitulation. ☐