"A threat to the new world order," is how New York Times columnist David Brooks described Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rich Lowry explained how when German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Putin, she thought he was 'living in a different world.' The new world order that Mr. Brooks was referring to is one in which economies are integrated and governments don't go invading other countries.
But it can be said that Mr. Putin is living very much in this world because taking that explanation at its face, the United States has also been in violation of what it quote-unquote civilized with its 2003 invasion of Iraq. We're not going to re-litigate that decision for the up-teenth time her today, but there needs to be clarification. What Mr. Brooks is referring to is an ideal, and it is certainly not the reality, but what he's saying is that a G8 country shouldn't be acting in this fashion. There are better ways to achieve power than how Mr. Putin is doing it, but let's face it - a self-absorbed greed is what permeates in this integrated world economy, and given that, anything is possible. And greed is not only relegated to monetary wealth and that's what we're seeing from Mr. Putin.
However, where he is making his biggest mistake is in his hubris that all of these aggressive moves that he has been making will stand without consequences. Not only will the west react as they have already begun to do with sanctions, but what happens as time goes by and all these people newly embraced by Russia realize that there lives have become no better because monetary help from the Kremlin is not coming. Nationalism is a very potent political aphrodisiac, as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, but it's only going to get you so far. Just ask the people of South Ossentia.
Mr. Putin respects the bully mentality and as he looks around the room at the other world leaders, there is no one stepping up that he thinks can slap him down so to speak, and unless President Obama does substantial as Mr. Brooks described, the Russian president will keep annexing resources. However, where we disagree with Mr. Brooks, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and National Review editor Rich Lowry is in outright arming the Ukrainians. If Mr. Putin continues to be aggressive and western Europe doesn't stand up to him in a unified manner, which they are reluctant to do, willing to have Ukraine's back as it were, then it won't matter how much weaponry you give them, they'll be rolled by the Russia army and you'll give Putin justification for doing so, however flimsy it may come off.
Rep. Rogers, speaking to Mr. Gregory in a prerecorded interview from the Republic of Georgia, presented an interest tidbit for all you conspiracy theorists out there that Edward Snowden who is under the control of Russian intelligence services has provided information to the Russian government that has made it easier Mr. Putin to make aggressive military moves. Mr. Gregory asked what evidence there was for thinking Mr. Snowden has cooperated with the Russians and all Mr. Rogers could offer is that it is a consensus belief in the intelligence community. His non-answer renders this theory as a bit of a stretch, but in a technologically integrated world its already been shown that one individual can cause an 'order changing' amount of chaos.
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York
Times columnist David Brooks, National Review Editor Rich Lowry and
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
On Another Note:
Obamacare is four years old this week and two things that were said within the round table discussion struck us: 1) that Rich Lowry was correct that if Republicans control the government in 2017, which is certainly possible, Obamacare will be repealed so it's not a definite that it's here to stay. David Brooks, on the other hand, said that while it's a good thing for many that they now have insurance, the cost controls touted by the president and Democratic officials will not happen. Obamacare is going to end up costing us a lot more than we all anticipated.
And yes, that's worrisome but it wouldn't be if the government did spend so many other dollars in the wrong places, just like the debate on today's program about whether or not college athletes should be paid or not. For us, the answer is no because as NCAA President Mark Emmert said, then they would cease to be students. We kept hearing this general notion that college sports is big business (we all know this as Reggie Love noted) and that universities are profiting heavily on the backs of these athletes. It seems to us that universities are just another place where they're spending big money in the wrong places. We don't claim to be experts but it seems obvious that this is the case - all these millions being made in the big business of college sports yet student loan debt in this country tops $1 trillion; why is that?
No comments:
Post a Comment