Putin’s First Year in the White House

As a student of history and a long time political activist - first for the GOP and now against the GOP - I find it chilling to watch what has been transpiring over the past eleven months.  The lessons of history from the Russian Revolution - first the overthrow of a monarchy and then the overthrow of a short lived democracy - and the rise of Hitler are utterly ignored by much of the American population or thought as irrelevant.  Viewers of Fox News, of course, have no grasp of what is even happening given the alternate universe that Fox presents, not to mention it's function as the American equivalent of Pravda under the Soviet Union.  Worse yet, Republicans are aiding and abetting in the threats to our democracy with abandon and helping American oligarchs to loot the country.  In a piece that is dead on, Andrew Sullivan looks at the first year of Putin's asset in the White House.  The entire piece is set out below and ought to be mandatory reading for anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand or up their posteriors. 

What are we to make of Vladimir Putin’s first year in the White House? How has he done.

I’m only slightly kidding. Or rather I’m just channeling a CNN interview earlier this week with James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence. Here’s what Clapper said: “I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that’s what he’s doing with the president […] You have to remember Putin’s background. He’s a KGB officer. That’s what they do. They recruit assets. And I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our president.”

Clapper clarified his statement by saying he was being figurative, rather than literal. So let’s just ask a figurative question, shall we? How successful has the Kremlin’s figurative investment been this past year? Pretty damn impressive.

Look first at Putin’s domestic goals. His core concern, as with any despot, is the legitimacy of his pseudo-democratic autocracy - which means, in turn, discrediting the very different features of the liberal democracies of the West. And in this, he must be scarcely able to believe his luck. After decades of the West’s championing of liberal democracy, the American president has spent his first year attacking it. Trump has exhibited contempt for a free press, describing the bulk of Western journalism as “fake news,” words that have gladdened the hearts of dictators across the planet. He has minimized Putin’s assassination of critical journalists, saying that America has no moral standing to criticize. He has treated the judiciary either as instruments of loyalty — hence his packing of the federal bench — or as pests to be slandered or dismissed. He prefers total loyalty from law-enforcement officials to the actual rule of law. For good measure, Trump has legitimized Putin’s core model of governance — that of a benevolent cult hero of the nation, shored up by religious reactionaries — by plagiarizing it. As for the other critical aspect of Putinism — the looting of the treasury by oligarchs — I give you the latest tax bill. It even carves out special goodies for real-estate investors.

Then there is Russia’s permanent interest in deepening the racial and partisan divides in America — the better to force the United States to be more concerned with internal strife than with foreign affairs. On this, Putin’s success is even more impressive. What better propaganda could the Kremlin get than the Charlottesville horrors, the racial divide crippling the NFL, or the candidacy of Roy Moore? In the Cold War, the Kremlin constantly cited America’s racial strife as proof that, whatever its democratic pretensions, the country was still a bastion of white supremacy. Now, much of American academia and an entire rising generation agree with what the Soviets long argued. As for the stability and legitimacy of liberal capitalism, Putin could scarcely do better than the GOP tax proposal. When economic inequality is at record highs, undermining the social compact that undergirds capitalism, the GOP is making things far worse. It would also add well over a trillion dollars to the U.S. debt. Trump is not just looting the Treasury for himself and his buddies, he is looting the younger generation as well.

Internationally, Putin has had an even bigger year. One of his central goals — the disintegration of the European Union and the entire concept of the West — has been advanced by Washington in ways never seen before. Trump backed Brexit, breaking the U.K. away from its European partners; he supported Marine Le Pen in France for the same reason; and he has routinely lambasted Merkel, whose power is now hanging by a thread. He chose Poland, where an authoritarian party is busy dismantling judicial independence, as the site for his major foreign-policy address. He has permanently undermined the core Article 5 commitment that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all of them, by being the first U.S. president to equivocate on it. America has also broken with its European allies by withdrawing from the Paris Accords on climate, threatening the Iran nuclear deal, and backing the ethno-nationalist extremists who now run Israel on the status of Jerusalem. Last week, the U.S. found itself utterly isolated at the U.N. on the question, and openly threatening all its allies with payback. In the Middle East, Russia has never been stronger — it is now the key player in the future of Syria, while Putin’s naked annexation of Crimea and sections of eastern Ukraine remains in place, unmentioned by the White House.

What more could Putin ask for? Well, he could hope that his grotesque attack on the last U.S. election would lead to no serious effort to prevent it happening again. And lo, an American president has emphatically refused to lift a finger to defend the Constitution he is duty bound to protect. There’s been no attempt by the White House to protect the integrity of our elections — just a constant disdain for those who worry about them, and a general, somewhat egregious, complacency.

No American president in history has ever given Russia so much in so short a time. Congrats, Vladimir. You’ve achieved what no Soviet dictator ever managed to. Your asset in the White House, figurative or not, has given more than all the British and American traitors in the history of the Cold War.

The End of Vladimir Putin?

Click image to enlarge

It's no secret that I think Vladimir Putin is a vile and corrupt man who needs to be removed from power.  He is the latest in a long line of Russian leaders who have harmed the well being of average Russian as these rulers chase after personal wealth at the expense of the populace and have more concern about satisfying their own egomania than the true welfare of the nation.  The book "Red Fortress: History and Illusion in the Kremlin" provides a great overview of Russia's history and the constant failure of many of its rulers.   Now, some are speculating that Putin may have overplayed his hand and set forces in motion that may lead to his much needed downfall.  Here are excerpts from a piece in Politico Magazine:

When rebel crosshairs fixed on Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 30,000 feet above the sunflowers of Eastern Ukraine, they had no idea what they were about to blow up. No clue they were about to incinerate hundreds of Dutch holidaymakers. None whatsoever they were about to wreck a decade of the Kremlin’s finest diplomacy—years of cleverly preventing the Americans from building a united Western front by playing divide and rule amongst the Europeans.

The rebels blew up more than a plane. They blew up Russia’s winning position in Brussels against sanctions. Europeans like to think they play games with others, but the truth is that for years Russia has been pulling strings inside the European Union. The boys in Brussels like to boast about the EU. But they are ashamed to admit how far the Kremlin had gamed them: playing them off each other with energy, armaments and oligarchs.

 . . . nothing big happened on sanctions before the downing of MH17. Kremlin sweeteners had divided the big three players: Britain was refusing to lose its business with Russian banks; France was determined not to lose billions in military contracts; and Germany, which gets 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, refused to budge on anything to do with energy. With the big boys thus compromised, the weaker southern European countries gave pushback: With Italy in the lead, they wanted nothing more than to warm up European relations with Russia again.

MH17 changed everything. That one rebel error means Vladimir Putin has gone from unpleasant neighbor to monster in the court of European public opinion.

Suddenly for Britain, Germany and the Netherlands – the home country of most of those incinerated on the MH17 – not standing up to Putin was no longer about money. These politicians suddenly risked losing their credibility and their votes at home. Suddenly, the calculation flipped: For David Cameron and Angela Merkel in particular, sanctions were suddenly politically profitable.

Russia’s rebels have achieved what American diplomats failed to do. For months, American diplomats had been lobbying the 28 EU member states to take a stronger stance toward Russia. Not even Britain was particularly obliged—all those rubles can buy a lot of wobbly upper lips, apparently. But no longer: Russia’s European diplomacy now lies in the wreckage of the MH17. The package that was carried through this week looks set to hit the kleptocratic network that underwrites Putin hard. Russia’s economy is already teetering on the edge of recession.  The move to restrict the access of Russian state banks to Western financial markets will hurt not only the Kremlin’s coffers, but also the Russian oligarchs whose companies are tied into them.

There is a growing consensus in Moscow that the Kremlin has been so distracted with the geopolitics, and its diplomatic fallout, that it has completely taken its eye off the country’s worsening economics.

But these sanctions are first a psychological blow to Russia’s ruling class. They like to think of themselves as businessmen, tycoons, captains of industry. . . . They now see it all at risk.

These sanctions – limited though they might be – open the door to more. Russian elites now fear Western sanctions will become routine answers. This is why the Kremlin is dreaming about China. The men who run Russia are paranoid they will slowly have to swap London living for Shanghai nights. Their foremost hope is that they can make up for sanctions on Western financial markets by moving their financial activity to Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Russia’s ruling classes are not about to throw Putin out: They are too bugged, too monitored, too frightened to attempt that. These banking sanctions are mild, but sanctions nevertheless. And yet something very important has changed in Russia. Putin is slowly morphing from being the guarantor of the oligarchs’ billions into a threat to their wealth. They have started – for the first time – to become losers in Putinism.

[W]hat the United States needs to start thinking about: how to play the politics of a Russian fiscal crisis someway down the road. What guarantees and concessions could it offer the Russian elite to tempt them away from Putin? That, of course—not the faint rumblings of a rejuvenated NATO—is exactly what Vladimir fears most.

 

America's Failed Economic Recovery

Social mobility continues to plummet in America while increasing in what the Republicans like to call "Old Europe."  Who would have ever thought that Europe with its former rigid class systems and hereditary titles would provide more promise than America and the so-called American dream which is fading for many and those in the Millennial Generation in particular.  What's also amazing is that those pushing for a cruel oligarchy in this country - e.g. the Koch brothers and much of the GOP - seem to have forgotten that throughout history sooner or later the masses have revolted - sometimes violently - against oligarchs who have been suffused with greed and mistreated the rest of society.  A main editorial in the New York Times looks at how the future prospects for our younger generations is shockingly fading.  One has to wonder when the reckoning will eventually come.  Here are highlights:

The official line is clear: The worst is over, and recovery has given way to expansion.

But that’s not the whole story. Economic gains so far have mostly benefited those at the top of the income and wealth ladder. Worse, future growth is likely to be lopsided, because the foundation for broad prosperity is arguably the weakest it has been since World War II.

Take, for example, Americans age 25 to 34, the leading edge of the so-called millennials, the generation born in the 1980s and 1990s. They are worse off than Gen Xers (born from the mid-1960s to the late-1970s) were at that age and the baby boomers before them by nearly every economic measure — employment, income, student loan indebtedness, mobility, homeownership and other hallmarks of “household formation,” like moving out on their own, getting married and having children.

This group had the bad luck of entering the work force in the depressed and slow-growth years that started when the recession hit in 2007. Instead of spending the crucial early years of their work lives laying the groundwork for a solid economic future, many of them have struggled with unemployment and underemployment, and many have fallen so far behind where they would hope to be that recovering lost ground may well be impossible.

According to the latest census data, nearly 16 percent of those in their mid-20s to mid-30s were in poverty in 2012, compared with just above 10 percent of Gen Xers in 2000 and baby boomers in 1980. Nearly 14 percent of that age group were living with their parents in 2013, a higher percentage than in previous generations. And of those living at home, 43 percent (2.5 million people) would be counted as being in poverty if they were on their own.
Some of the trends in the latest data were evident before the recession, especially stagnating wages, delayed marriage and later childbearing. But the poor economy has intensified those conditions. For instance, in a study by the Pew Research Center of the entire millennial generation, 74 percent were unmarried; many of them said they wanted to marry but lacked the economic wherewithal.

What is shocking is that despite the known danger and despite the prolonged bad economy, more government resources have not been used to prevent and reverse such a huge waste of human capital. Instead, public resources for job creation and even for unemployment benefits have been too little and too late, if available at all.

Another shocker is that those in the 25-to-34 age group are the best educated cohort in American history, with more than a third having a bachelor’s degree or higher. Education is important. But clearly, education alone does not create jobs and opportunities that lead to prosperity. For that, a fair and functional economy is needed — one in which the government plays a robust role, alongside consumers and businesses, to promote full employment and to ensure a just distribution of gains.

Younger millennials are not appreciably better off than their older peers, though they have not yet lost as much ground. At the other end of the spectrum, many older Americans who lost jobs and assets in the recession also face an uncertain future.

Certain sectors of the economy, especially the financial markets, are indeed turning a corner. But true prosperity is impossible when the productive potential of young adults is being squandered.

Just as the GOP is courting long term political suicide by courting declining numbers of aging, angry white voters, so too are they setting the stage for a potential overthrow of the system they claim to honor.

Is America Drifting to Oligrachy?

By almost any analysis, today's Republican Party is the party of the wealthy and a return to the worse social abuses of the Gilded Age is the GOP's main goal.  When push comes to shove, average Americans are deemed unimportant other than to the extent that they can be duped into supporting policies that are, in fact, against their own interests (racism and religion are the favored tools in this effort).  Worse yet, the poor and unfortunate are deemed to be disposable trash as time after time the GOP seeks to shred the social safety net.  As for minorities, the GOP seeks to disenfranchise them and limit their ability to vote.  All the while, of course, the GOP pretends to support "Christian values" even as the Gospel message is flushed down the toilet.  It's an ugly picture.  A column in the New York Times looks at America's slide toward oligrachy.  Here are excerpts:

As Mr. Piketty notes, “the risk of a drift toward oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism.”

Indeed. And if you want to feel even less optimistic, consider what many U.S. politicians are up to. America’s nascent oligarchy may not yet be fully formed — but one of our two main political parties already seems committed to defending the oligarchy’s interests. 

Despite the frantic efforts of some Republicans to pretend otherwise, most people realize that today’s G.O.P. favors the interests of the rich over those of ordinary families. I suspect, however, that fewer people realize the extent to which the party favors returns on wealth over wages and salaries. And the dominance of income from capital, which can be inherited, over wages — the dominance of wealth over work — is what patrimonial capitalism is all about.

To see what I’m talking about, start with actual policies and policy proposals. It’s generally understood that George W. Bush did all he could to cut taxes on the very affluent, that the middle-class cuts he included were essentially political loss leaders. It’s less well understood that the biggest breaks went not to people paid high salaries but to coupon-clippers and heirs to large estates. 

Some of these cuts were reversed under President Obama, but the point is that the great tax-cut push of the Bush years was mainly about reducing taxes on unearned income. And when Republicans retook one house of Congress, they promptly came up with a plan — Representative Paul Ryan’s “road map” — calling for the elimination of taxes on interest, dividends, capital gains and estates. Under this plan, someone living solely off inherited wealth would have owed no federal taxes at all.

This tilt of policy toward the interests of wealth has been mirrored by a tilt in rhetoric; Republicans often seem so intent on exalting “job creators” that they forget to mention American workers.

In fact, not only don’t most Americans own businesses, but business income, and income from capital in general, is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. In 1979 the top 1 percent of households accounted for 17 percent of business income; by 2007 the same group was getting 43 percent of business income, and 75 percent of capital gains. Yet this small elite gets all of the G.O.P.’s love, and most of its policy attention.

Great wealth buys great political influence — and not just through campaign contributions. Many conservatives live inside an intellectual bubble of think tanks and captive media that is ultimately financed by a handful of megadonors. Not surprisingly, those inside the bubble tend to assume, instinctively, that what is good for oligarchs is good for America.

As I’ve already suggested, the results can sometimes seem comical. The important point to remember, however, is that the people inside the bubble have a lot of power, which they wield on behalf of their patrons. And the drift toward oligarchy continues.

How to Punish Putin

Like the tsars of old, Vladimir Putin needs two things to remain in power as a virtual dictator: (i) a continued ability to dupe the larger population and play upon their prejudices and insecurities and (ii) continued support from Russia's oligarchs who have become the equivalent of the nobility under the tsarist regime.  Once Nicholas II lost the support of key members of the nobility, his abdication was inevitable (indeed, the husband of Nicholas' niece even helped assassinate Rasputin).  An op-ed column in the New York Times makes the case that the west can best punish Putin by striking at the Russian oligarchs who, if pressed to choose between Putin and their own continued wealth and lavish lifestyle would likely throw Putin under the bus.  Here are some  column highlights:

AS I write this, I am under house arrest. I was detained at a rally in support of anti-Putin protesters who were jailed last month.

In September, I ran for mayor of Moscow as a pro-reform, pro-democracy opposition candidate and received almost a third of the vote despite having no access to state media. Today, my blog, which was until recently visited by over two million readers per month, has been blocked as “extremist” after I called for friendly ties with Ukraine and compliance with international law.

[O]n Feb. 28, Russia sent troops to Ukraine in precisely such a “little war.” I admit that I underestimated Mr. Putin’s talent for finding enemies, as well as his dedication to ruling as “president for life,” with powers on par with the czars’.

As a citizen and patriot, I cannot support actions against Russia that would worsen conditions for our people. Still, I recommend two options that, if successfully implemented, I believe would be welcomed by most Russians.

First, although Mr. Putin’s invasion has already prompted the European Union to impose sanctions on 21 officials, and the United States on seven, most of these government figures cannot be considered influential. They do not have major assets outside Russia and are irrelevant to Mr. Putin; sanctioning them will not change Russia’s policy. After all the tough talk from Western politicians, this action is mocked in Russia and even seen as a tacit encouragement to Mr. Putin and his entourage, who seem to possess some magical immunity.

Instead, Western nations could deliver a serious blow to the luxurious lifestyles enjoyed by the Kremlin’s cronies who shuttle between Russia and the West. This means freezing the oligarchs’ financial assets and seizing their property.

Such sanctions should primarily target Mr. Putin’s inner circle, the Kremlin mafia who pillage the nation’s wealth, including Gennady N. Timchenko, head of the Volga Group; Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, influential businessmen and former judo sparring partners of Mr. Putin; Yuri V. Kovalchuk, a financier believed to be Mr. Putin’s banker; Vladimir I. Yakunin, president of Russian Railways; the oligarchs Roman A. Abramovich and Alisher B. Usmanov; and Igor I. Sechin and Aleksei B. Miller, the heads of Rosneft and Gazprom, respectively.

The sanctions must also hit the oligarchs whose media outlets parrot the regime lines, and target Mr. Putin’s entire “war cabinet”: the TV spin doctors, compliant Duma members and apparatchiks of Mr. Putin’s United Russia Party.

Second, Western authorities must investigate ill-gotten gains from Russia within their jurisdictions. The Anti-Corruption Foundation, which I established in 2011, has revealed dozens of major cases of graft. In 90 percent of those cases, Russian money was laundered in the West. Sadly, American, European Union and British law enforcement agencies have stymied our efforts to investigate such criminal plunder.

“Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia in the hearts and minds of people,” Mr. Putin claimed this week. But even among the most nationalist and pro-Soviet of our people, a longing to restore Crimea to Russian rule faded years ago.  Yet Mr. Putin has cynically raised nationalist fervor to a fever pitch; imperialist annexation is a strategic choice to bolster his regime’s survival. Mobilizing the masses by distracting them from real problems like corruption and economic stagnation can take place only beneath the banner of fighting external enemies.

It is true that the consensus in both Russia and Crimea is that the peninsula has historically been closer to Moscow than to Kiev. But the notion that this reunification should be achieved at the end of the barrel of a gun is supported only by Mr. Putin’s hard-core base. The opposition has spoken clearly. The antiwar protest held in Moscow over the weekend was the largest in two years, and it exceeded any counterdemonstration mustered by pro-Kremlin movements.

There is a common delusion among the international community that although Mr. Putin is corrupt, his leadership is necessary because his regime subdues the dark, nationalist forces that otherwise would seize power in Russia. The West should admit that it, too, has underestimated Mr. Putin’s malign intent. It is time to end the dangerous delusion that enables him.