As somebody who experienced the Velvet Revolution firsthand, I have to admit that Ms. Cheney's article is full of BS. America and Reagan didn't have much to do with the fall of communism; this was pretty much work of one man - Mikhail Gorbachev. As Soviet Union loosened their tight grip (especially the military grip) over the eastern bloc under Gorbachev's administration, the people living there could upraise freely without the fear of brutal Soviet military response (as it happened a few times before). Ms. Cheney, where was America (and the rest of the West for that matter) in the summer of 1968 or fall of 1956?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I wasn't going to bother reading Cheney's op-ed (Imo she's not worth listening to), but the exchange between Mith and Eelco changed my mind. Now that I have read it, I'd say that she is the mirror image of an unreconstituted Russian communist.

I completely agree, the tone of the article reminds me of articles in newspaper published by the communist party of Czechoslovakia in the mid 1980's that I remember from my childhood...

Quote: Original post by trzy
I skimmed the article and it seems that Liz Cheney starts out by objecting to the notion that Eastern Europeans had any vital role in the demise of communism. This appears contrary to how many people viewed the end of the Cold War. From last week's Economist:

Quote:
The end of the cold war in 1989 brought a sense of relief and satisfaction to America. As Jack Matlock, America’s ambassador in Moscow, described it in his memoirs, “The way we looked at it at the time, and the way Gorbachev looked at it, was that we all won the cold war. We ended it.” When the Soviet Union crumbled two years later, America was caught unprepared and scrambling for a policy. Its biggest concern was removing nuclear rockets from former Soviet republics. Yegor Gaidar, Russia’s former prime minister in charge of economic reform, says this was one of the most successful operations Russia and America have mounted together.

Cheney is mired in American triumphalism. Her acknowledgment of the notion of American exceptional suggests, however, that she knows better. I suspect that she sees her task as coming to the defense of her old man (which doesn't happen much outside of Fox News and talk radio) and the Bush administration (which she was a part of).

That Economist article is interesting. America’s policy towards Russia may not have been triumphalist in the early 1990's, but the collapse of the USSR was seen as a triumph (cue Stephen Colbert) and as the 1990's wore on, it became a centerpiece in the hagiography of Reagan that was forming.

Quote: Original post by trzy
That said, Russia is a real problem. It's a country with tremendous wasted human potential, virtually no chance of recovery, and a perpetual attitude problem. It remains relevant mostly because of its nuclear stockpile, its ability to damage European interests and those of its immediate neighbors (in contrast to being a helpful force), and because of its vast natural reserves. It doesn't warrant nearly as much attention as it would like except for historical reasons.

I'd say Russia has a lot of real problems, not that it is a real problem.

Quote: Original post by trzy
Someday there might be a huge land grab for Russia's vast territories once she stumbles and is unable to get up.

Han Chinese for needed breathing room and Chinese-American multinationals in demand of natural resources.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Wall Street Journal article by Liz Cheney

Wow. I can't believe I took the trouble to read the entire article after seeing that first sentence. Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, but she's done it in quite a poor and predictable manner. The blog comments seem to suggest that most readers agree with her. Perhaps you're not the intended audience. :)

Quote: What's the counter-newspaper to the WSJ? Is there a counter-newspaper to the WSJ?

I have a subscription to the Economist. Of course it's not a newspaper and you can't really claim it's the absolute opposite of the spectrum. But I really like it.

Quote: Original post by misi
As somebody who experienced the Velvet Revolution firsthand, I have to admit that Ms. Cheney's article is full of BS. America and Reagan didn't have much to do with the fall of communism; this was pretty much work of one man - Mikhail Gorbachev. As Soviet Union loosened their tight grip (especially the military grip) over the eastern bloc under Gorbachev's administration, the people living there could upraise freely without the fear of brutal Soviet military response (as it happened a few times before). Ms. Cheney, where was America (and the rest of the West for that matter) in the summer of 1968 or fall of 1956?

Mutually assured destruction. The Economist article that trzy linked to says that the West forgave Poland's debt but not Russia's. How did the West treat Czechoslovakia with regard to it's debts after communism? I remember in the mid 1990's that Prague was the hot place for ex-pats. Now I hear it's turned into the Amsterdam of Eastern Europe (which is fine by me).

Quote: Original post by misi

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I wasn't going to bother reading Cheney's op-ed (Imo she's not worth listening to), but the exchange between Mith and Eelco changed my mind. Now that I have read it, I'd say that she is the mirror image of an unreconstituted Russian communist.

I completely agree, the tone of the article reminds me of articles in newspaper published by the communist party of Czechoslovakia in the mid 1980's that I remember from my childhood...

Interesting. The WSJ has long been the premiere newspaper of American capitalism. Given the state of affairs on Wall Street these days, it would not surprise me to find out that it's editors secretly wish for the return of the Cold War.

Quote: Original post by WanMaster

Quote: What's the counter-newspaper to the WSJ? Is there a counter-newspaper to the WSJ?

I have a subscription to the Economist. Of course it's not a newspaper and you can't really claim it's the absolute opposite of the spectrum. But I really like it.

The Economist is an excellent publication. Interestingly enough, while other newspapers and magazines have been having difficult times staying in business recently, the Economist has been gaining subscribers.

Regarding the question about the counter to the WSJ, the most obvious answer is the New York Times. From what I've gathered, Murdoch has the NYT in his sites.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Cheney is mired in American triumphalism. Her acknowledgment of the notion of American exceptional suggests, however, that she knows better. I suspect that she sees her task as coming to the defense of her old man (which doesn't happen much outside of Fox News and talk radio) and the Bush administration (which she was a part of).

I think the neo-cons have been very frightened by America's economic and political decline. Their dream of a New American Century on their own terms is fading fast. Everyone perceives the need for a new ideological revolution to recharge us morally, socially, and then economically, but nobody knows how it ought to play out. I don't expect any creative or useful suggestions from the neo-cons, although I do hope America regains its confidence and is able to legitimately proclaim the superiority of Western values once again.

From the conclusion of the linked article:

Quote:
The events of 1979 tell us a great deal about the nature of counterrevolution, which is very important to understand, because we might be living through another one right now. Perhaps the key insight is that though counterrevolutionaries may be reactionaries, they are not mere conservatives. Conservatives aspire to return to the status quo ante. Counterrevolutionaries understand that their revolutionary opponents have changed the rules of the game in fundamental ways and that the reaction must adjust accordingly. Although philosophers Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre rejected the French Revolution as evidence of "progress" run amok, they responded with intellectual programs of such vigor and sophistication that the leaders they claimed to be defending didn't always find themselves approving.

The shrewdest counterrevolutionaries, moreover, happily exploit revolutionary achievements to their own ends. Deng understood that, by imposing its harsh unity throughout the once fissured mainland, China's dictatorship of the proletariat had actually created the preconditions for a thoroughly bourgeois, ruthlessly capitalist economy. (Wasn't it supposed to work the other way around?) The shah's modernization program displaced legions of overeducated, underemployed young men from villages to the margins of big cities—disoriented, angry, and ripe for recruitment by the "traditionalist" Khomeini. As for Thatcher, one of her most eloquent opponents within her own party was writer Ian Gilmour, who reproached her for failing to grasp that "real" conservatism meant above all adherence to the received order: "British Conservatism is not an '-ism.' It is ... not a system of ideas. It is not an ideology or a doctrine." Thatcher, by contrast, embodied a classic counterrevolutionary paradox: She wanted change, radical change, in order to get back to the way things should be.

Quote:
I'd say Russia has a lot of real problems, not that it is a real problem.

Its internal problems provide much of the driving force for the aggressive posturing around its periphery and on the international stage.

Quote:
Han Chinese for needed breathing room and Chinese-American multinationals in demand of natural resources.

Yes. But who knows what other players might emerge in the next century? In Central Asia and to the south there are large, growing populations, some of them in failed states like Pakistan.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Regarding the question about the counter to the WSJ, the most obvious answer is the New York Times. From what I've gathered, Murdoch has the NYT in his sites.

I've never really read the WSJ and although I like the NY Times, I almost never read the op-eds and columnists. They're very boring, safely mainstream, and are rarely insightful. A good online publication is Asia Times. Francesco Sisci is arguably the best Western commentator on China. David Goldman (aka Spengler) spins a very thought-provoking and consistent yarn. The Atlantic, Economist, and Foreign Policy magazine are great as well.

Quote: Original post by Promit
Turned into? No. Become more overt sure....

This.



Their opinion pieces are almost the same as having the Fox "News" Channel on paper.

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
A Cheney being a total fucking retard? I'm shocked!

/like an iraqi torture victim
//ziiing!

:rofl:

Quote: Original post by trzy
I think the neo-cons have been very frightened by America's economic and political decline. Their dream of a New American Century on their own terms is fading fast. Everyone perceives the need for a new ideological revolution to recharge us morally, socially, and then economically, but nobody knows how it ought to play out. I don't expect any creative or useful suggestions from the neo-cons, although I do hope America regains its confidence and is able to legitimately proclaim the superiority of Western values once again.

The neocons have yet to be purged from the system. They maintain some influence over the Democrats via Zionism. I see trumpeting superiority again as a vestige of neoconservativism, so your hope seems as dim as their dreams. As that article says, ideology is suspect, pragmatism is the order of the day, the future remains open. Contrary to that article, the legacy of 1979 does not teach us that people are "always ready to embrace a compelling vision of the future". That's a nonsense conclusion given the lengths the article goes through to detail the specific conditions that led to the "great backlash" in 1979. We're not on the cusp of a counter-revolution to the counter-revolution - to apply that author's terminology. The "Great Recession" may have discredited Thatcher and Reagan on the surface, but the roots they laid down still remain in place. The fact that single payer health care was completely cut out of the discussion attests to this.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
I'd say Russia has a lot of real problems, not that it is a real problem.

Its internal problems provide much of the driving force for the aggressive posturing around its periphery and on the international stage.

Perhaps the posturing serves as a domestic distraction, but Russian paranoia with it's periphery has a long history that predates the USSR.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
Han Chinese for needed breathing room and Chinese-American multinationals in demand of natural resources.

Yes. But who knows what other players might emerge in the next century? In Central Asia and to the south there are large, growing populations, some of them in failed states like Pakistan.

India. Pakistan pales in comparison.