Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

recent posts

email me

A potentially hostile foreign power

Nick Cohen sees a bleak future, with a US President-elect who actually admires Putin and sees Russia as the West's natural ally against radical Islam:

In the past, Britain would have looked to the US for support and leadership. Now, and with the worst timing imaginable, at the very moment when Brexit is tearing up our relationship with Europe, Britain has to wonder if America is still a reliable partner. Downing Street and the Foreign Office must deal with a US president who endorses every violation of US and international law the British government has denounced. Trump has proposed recognising the annexation of Crimea that Britain opposed. Rather than fear Russian cyberwarfare as Britain does, he so revels in it he encouraged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff, told me he’s is not remotely surprised that a panicking Theresa May is sending her most senior advisers to meet Trump’s team. Britain’s European alliance is in crisis and so is our American alliance. All the relationships we have relied on for decades may dissolve simultaneously. For the first time since 1941, a Britain isolated from Europe may have to regard the United States as a potentially hostile foreign power.

Posted in

11 responses to “A potentially hostile foreign power”

  1. djf Avatar
    djf

    Trump is unattractive and apparently stupid, I agree. But most of the foreign policy advisors he has picked do not seem to share his schoolgirl crush on Putin, and the likelihood is that he will leave most of the governing to them.
    It is difficult to see how Trump’s administration could do anywhere near as much damage to the West as the EU and the Obama maladministration have done over the last several years. It is the disastrous agenda of the EU and Obama that Hillary Clinton promised to continue had she been elected. That we have avoided that is at least grounds for hope.
    As for Crimea and the Ukraine, Putin’s actions are wrong and should be disapproved, but we really have much bigger fish to fry. Perhaps, in retrospect, it would have been a good idea for the West not to involve itself in promoting the ridiculous “Orange Revolution” and not to have extended NATO to Russia’s borders.
    I am amazed at educated British people’s determination to give away their sovereignty and right of democratic self-government to an authoritarian clown show like the EU. Churchill would weep.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Bob-B Avatar
    Bob-B

    NATO did not decide to exend itself to Russia’s borders. Russia’s former colonies deciding that they wanted to be members because of their long experience of Russian bulying. If Russia was a normal modern country believing in friendly and productive neighbours, they would have had no motivation to join NATO. Sadly Russia is a backward country that believes in bullying and threating its neighbours. NATO membership was the inevitable result.

    Like

    Reply
  3. djf Avatar
    djf

    Bob-B: I completely understand why the former Soviet satellites and republics wanted to join NATO. But nothing compelled NATO to let them join. Arguably, doing so was highly imprudent, and the commitment ultimately will not be kept. Does anyone really think we are going to go to war with Russia to defend the independence of, say, Latvia?

    Like

    Reply
  4. Bob-B Avatar
    Bob-B

    There was nothing ‘impudent’ about the actions of the West. The impudence comes solely from Russia. Anne Applebaum is good on the alleged humiliation of Russia:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anne-applebaum-nato-pays-a-heavy-price-for-giving-russia-too-much-credita-true-achievement-under-threat/2014/10/17/5b3a6f2a-5617-11e4-809b-8cc0a295c773_story.html?utm_term=.dd6e45dc53b5
    Of course Russian behaviour is unsurprising given that it is run by a former KGB man. No doubt Germany would have been similar if it had been run 25 years after the end of the Third Reich by a former gestapo man.

    Like

    Reply
  5. djf Avatar
    djf

    That Russia’s behavior in response to the expansion of NATO was “unsurprising” is precisely my point. Given that Russia is what it is, we should not have needlessly provoked on matters peripheral to our interests. To say that is not to defend Putin, just to say that we (the West) can’t realize our values everywhere and need to set priorities.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Bob-B Avatar
    Bob-B

    Russia needs to be contained just as it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Eventually Putin will pass from the scene, and things will be different. Of course he may try to hang on Mugabe-style for decade after decade, but if the Russian econmy collapses, as it may, the Russian elite may turn against him. Eventually Russia will be a normal modern country. I hope it will be within my lifetime.

    Like

    Reply
  7. djf Avatar
    djf

    If you’re right, Bob-B, there was no reason to expand NATO, we could have just sat back and waited for Russia to become the “normal modern country” you’re so sure it will become. The point is, Russia is NOT a “normal modern country,” shows no signs of becoming one (Putin will just be replaced with another despot or oligarchy), and that it is why it was dangerous to gratuitously provoke it on matters peripheral to Western interests. Now they are really screwing us in the Middle East, where we have real interests (with Obama’s help).
    I doubt that what the governments of the EU have been doing in the area of immigration over the last decade or two is conducive to remaining “normal modern countries.”

    Like

    Reply
  8. Bob-B Avatar
    Bob-B

    I find Applebaum’s assessment of matters a lot more persuasive than yours. But then someone who sees the EU as ‘an authoritarian clown show’ has a funny view of the world. If it was really ‘an authoritarian clown show’, there wouldn’t be so many outsiders keen to get in. People would be trying to get out.

    Like

    Reply
  9. djf Avatar
    djf

    You mean Juncker, Merkel and Hollande are not creepy authoritarian clowns? Could have fooled me.
    Perhaps countries want to get into the EU because otherwise they would lose their markets. And, of course, poorer countries (like that noble republic, Ukraine) want handouts. Both of these reasons are compatible with the EU being authoritarian (and clownish). If you are suggesting that the EU is not authoritarian, that is rather surprising. But believe what you want.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Bonnemort Avatar
    Bonnemort

    Bob-B is quite right. It really is most provoking of the Russians to put their borders right next door to NATO troops.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Bob-B Avatar
    Bob-B

    The Russians have a nasty tendency to move their borders. They did it when they were the Soviet Union and they have done it again in recent years. Their neighbours would not have been interested in joining NATO if Russia did not have a longstanding tendency to bully is neighbours.
    Merkel and Hollande are democratically elected politicians in countries where opposition politicians can operate freely. Rather different from Russia, where opposition politicians tend to end up in jal, in exle or in an early grave.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment