Past and Future President Putin
Last Saturday, at United Russia’s congress, the ruling duumvirate of President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin finally ended the uncertainty of some months’ standing. Putin first asked Medvedev to head United Russia’s list at next December’s Duma election. Accepting the offer, Medvedev proposed that United Russia nominate Putin as its presidential candidate in March 2012. The news is as welcome as it is unsurprising. Short of an act of God, the world’s largest country will have Putin as president for the next two six-year terms, until 2024. This will ensure much needed stability amidst the ongoing program of reforms at home and an equally desirable continuity in Russia’s foreign relations.
Medvedev is an able technocrat, Putin is a statesman. Medvedev is strongly aware of Russia’s pressing need to modernize, to diversify her economy and to streamline her bureaucracy, and he is well equipped to continue his earlier efforts in that direction. Putin is primarily focused on Russia’s need to preserve and enhance her identity as a Christian nation and a great power. He knows that Russia’s first-order priorities are to increase her relative political, economic and military clout in the global system, to revive the national sense of purpose, and to resist Western pressures to entwine modernization with suicidal multiculturalization.
The former is the job of a hard-working prime minister and his teams of hand-picked managers; the latter is the task of a visionary president. There is no contradiction between these two sets of tasks, Western media pack’s claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Modernization devoid of the guiding hand of statesmanship is self-defeating—as witnessed by Spain after Franco, a once-great country sadly adrift today. On the other hand, strong insistence on rootedness, cultural identity and tradition, however healthy in itself, may hamper a state’s ability to maintain the dynamics of its autochthonous existence if it is not accompanied by long-overdue reforms—as witnessed in Belarus.
Putin’s return to the helm is a key precondition that Russia will preserve its internal cohesion and external security as Medvedev proceeds with his modernization projects. The experience of the past four years proves that Russia is not inherently ill-suited to a successful “dual power.” It enjoyed 14 years of successful dual monarchy after the Times of Troubles (1619-1633) when the young, reform-minded yet weak Tsar Mikhail Romanov ruled in conjunction with his father Philaret, the Patriarch and “Great Sovereign.”
Since our neoliberals and neoconservatives and their European equivalents are equally antipathetic to a Russia—any Russia—which is cohesive internally and secure externally, it is unsurprising that they are screaming blue murder at the “undemocratic” arrangement about to unfold in Moscow and the country’s pending return to autocracy, corruption and stagnation. This is good. For as long as the Western bien-pensants repeat the mantra, Russia is on the right track. Any praise for its leaders from Washington, New York, London or Brussels—such as heaped on Yeltsin, Kozyrev & Co. two decades ago—would be a cause for alarm, justified by the country’s calamitous state during the 1990’s.
In a broader geopolitical sense Putin’s return to Russia’s helm is beneficial to the American interest because he has a more acute understanding than Medvedev that North America, Europe and Russia essentially share the same civilizational genes and belong to the same cultural sphere. As Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, noted almost three years ago, “If the northern civilization wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.”
This statement reflects a profound understanding of the biological, cultural and spiritual commonalities shared by one billion Europeans and their overseas descendants in the northern hemisphere — an understanding evidently taken for granted in Putin’s entourage yet odious to the Western elite class. Medvedev, by contrast, has displayed occasional symptoms of the propensity of Russian reformers ever since Peter to look at “the West” with some awe, or else with a naïve hope that Moscow’s constant assurances of “cooperation” and “integration” may erode the visceral antipathy of the Western elite class toward Russia. That disdain is based on the accurate recognition that Russia is the last bastion of faith and identity which those people have done their best to destroy in their own countries.
In Washington the ruling neo-liberal humanitarian interventionists will deny that any common Euro-Russo-American civilization exists, let alone that it is worth preserving or jointly defending, and they will use Putin as proof positive that this is so. Russia is still steeped in its barbarian blood-and-soil pre-modernity while the propositional credo of the U.S. transcends the shackles of ethnicity, race, culture, and faith. If Putin still insists on a Russian physical or cultural space that does not belong to everyone—while Siberia remains under-populated—he is a bigot, and under him it is even less likely that Moscow will finally see a Gay Pride Parade.
PUTIN AND THE GOP RACE—At the other end of the Duopoly, the timing of Putin’s expected return works out nicely for GOP presidential hopefuls looking for a cheap way to sound hairy-chested on foreign policy. One can’t help but recall then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s reference to “Putin raising his head” in the general vicinity of Alaska, a comment no doubt reflecting the work of the lobbyist for Georgia’s necktie-munching president Mikheil Saakashvili serving at the time as Palin’s foreign policy adviser.
Russia has hardly figured in the Republican debates so far, which can be expected to change as the contenders—with the exception of Ron Paul—receive their cues from their various handlers and heavy-breathing commentaries (now being drafted) in the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard, and “analyses” from Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, to the effect that Putin’s return amounts to a reincarnation of Stalin himself. The fact is that for many GOP apparatchiki the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism served not as a cautionary tale about the hubris of empire and the folly of millennial ideology but the opportunity to supplant the USSR at the end-of-history purveyor of “progressive” values. To the extent that Putin equals a strong Russia, his return is just unacceptable. He is an affront to the Beltway Elite article of faith that no power or combination of powers has any right to reserve its own Monroe Doctrine-like sphere or influence or even to exercise its sovereignty over its internal affairs.
The predictable effusion of anti-Putin rhetoric, for those few with a sense of perspective, will serve as a reminder that the last thing the American electorate will be offered in November 2012 is an American Putin. Depressingly, whether it is Obama or those lining up to challenge him, no prospective president is prepared to make our country once again strong, respected, and self-sufficient.
UNDERSTANDING PUTINOPHOBIA—That a “democratic” Russia can be only the one subservient domestically and externally to American demands and ideas is accepted on both sides of the U.S. duopoly and its Euro-cohorts. The party has already started, predictably enough, in Britain, with The Daily Telegraph expressing fears Vladimir Putin will turn Russia into outright dictatorship. British “conservatives” and their neocon ilk across the Pond have not an inch of space from George Soros when he claims that “a strong central government in Russia cannot be democratic” by definition, and further says that “Russia’s general public must accept the ideology of an open society.”
For both the quasi-Left and the quasi-Right in today’s Western world, “democracy” thus defined depends on an actors’ status on the ideological pecking order, not on his popular support, in line with the Leninist dictum that the moral value of any action is determined by its contribution to the march of history. To wit, Putin’s current approval rating of over 60 percent is now cited in the West as further evidence of his populist demagoguery.
Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands and nations more than any others, and who put their families, their friends, their neighborhoods and their loved ones before all others, should be pleased at Putin’s forthcoming return to Russia’s helm. Unlike our leaders, he is one of us.
Entries(RSS)
Another prescient analysis by Dr. Trikovic and a most welcome one, given all of the ludicrous pronouncements pouring forth from the feeble minds who occupy positions of power and influence in our US government and major media.
As many on this site realize, Russia shares so much with the West that our interests conjoin at many points, even if both our elected and self-appointed cognoscenti are oblivious to them. This piece should be required reading in our classrooms and op-ed pages, which is precisely why it, nor any other opinion pieces reflecting similar views will ever see the light of day in such venues.
For those who go on bleating about Putin's return reflecting a destruction of the electoral process, one need only point to the countless EU nation "votes" in which citizens regularly reject EU overtures only to have the results ignored; this is coupled with the scheduling of fresh votes until the people get it "right." No need to even discuss political voting here in the US!
For those who have been paying attention, our administration has been spending great amounts of money and time in the promotion of the gay agenda in Eastern Europe; it has met with considerable resistance but the pressures on these people to accept it has only increased. Perhaps Putin's strength will help both the Russians and their Eastern brethren resist such efforts. Ultimately, only when we treat Russia as a full, important and integral partner in the effort to preserve our culture will we have any chance for success.
Good news, but just for a good late-night cider accompaniment I still want to see the State Department's leaked memo about Putin and Medvedev as Batman and Robin.
Any praise for its leaders from Washington, New York, London or Brussels—such as heaped on Yeltsin, Kozyrev & Co. two decades ago—would be a cause for alarm, justified by the country’s calamitous state during the 1990’s.
Another excellent point.
In a broader geopolitical sense Putin’s return to Russia’s helm is beneficial to the American interest because he has a more acute understanding than Medvedev that North America, Europe and Russia essentially share the same civilizational genes and belong to the same cultural sphere. As Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, noted almost three years ago, “If the northern civilization wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.”
Here in Gaul, Marine Le Pen has been calling for a rapprochement with Russia in French foreign relations. Although I've said that the FN platform will be far more effective if she wins in 2012 and potentially watered down if victory has to be deferred, it might not have to be that way. If Le Pen doesn't win, who knows: in five years, perhaps the growing strategic importance of Russia will have a salutary fallout on the political climates of France and Germany, if not the U.K., with the FN and their cousin parties able to laugh and say, "I told you so!"
Putin is primarily focused on Russia’s need to preserve and enhance her identity as a Christian nation and a great power. He knows that Russia’s first-order priorities are to increase her relative political, economic and military clout in the global system, to revive the national sense of purpose, and to resist Western pressures to entwine modernization with suicidal multiculturalization... disdain is based on the accurate recognition that Russia is the last bastion of faith and identity which those people have done their best to destroy in their own countries.
Dr. T, the Russian national and confessional identity is clearly strong and healthy, at least judging from my encounters with pretty much every Russian expat I've known. But equally strong, unfortunately, are their A) proclivity to use contraceptives (judging from their natality rate), and B) disdain for refusal of right-wing European Catholics, whose views they often otherwise share, to admit the permissibility of contraceptives (and this I have encountered personally). This becomes all the more critical when one contrasts the fertility rate of ethnic Russians verus that of Muslim federal subjects.
I realize that Putin, for his part, has asked Russian people to have more babies, and the Russian Orthodox Church has issued some very strong words against contraceptives. But so long as the folk mentality is willing to justify it for personal reasons, all the while continuing to profess love of Church and fatherland, what does that mean for the future of Russia?
Re #2 MOSES Nicholas, you read my mind - If Russians don't start reproducing, it doesn't matter how strong Putin is.
Regarding the "strong words" the Russian Orthodox Church/Moscow Patriarchate used against contraception: Have you seen any statements lately that *unequivocally* condemn contraception? As far as I know, the currently "operative" teaching of the ROC/MP on contraception is to be found in the Social Doctrine section of the declarations of their "Jubilee Council" of 2000. Here is the text: "XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin." (See http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/)
If this is as strong as it's going to get, it's not strong enough.
"that North America, Europe and Russia essentially share the same civilizational genes and belong to the same cultural sphere. As Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, noted almost three years ago, “If the northern civilization wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.”
I have spent some time in Russia over the past few years. I have heard this sentiment expressed to me many times. Russia has a long memory and understands that its enemies are the Chinese and Muslim extremism. As Dr. Trifkovic notes, there is a clash coming in the future over the fate of eastern Russia with Chinese illegal 'immigration' and the abundance of valuable minerals in the area coveted by Beijing.
As far as its stance on democratic government, does anyone think that the decadence and special interest politics of western governments controlled by global bankers provide a model for Russia's future? I think the Russians are much smarter than to go down that road.
If this is as strong as it’s going to get, it’s not strong enough.
I know that throughout the last century, that weak position of "excessive" contraception not being desirable but some being permissible for married couples was the generally accepted norm among Eastern Orthodox bishops. However, I was referring to a 2004 declaration by the Assembly of Hierarchs of the ROC which said that "family planning" was "a pernicious practice that leads not only to the reduction of the country’s population but also to its moral degradation."
However, I don't think they went so far as to condemn outright the use of artificial contraceptives, and I do agree with you that nothing short of that will be particularly effective.
I am also under the impression--although Dr. T can correct me if I'm wrong--that Orthodox clergy are not as insistent as Catholic clergy on the obligation entailed by the Third Commandment to be fulfilled EVERY Sunday. I have encountered Orthodox who told me, "Oh, I'm very religious, but the liturgy just lasts too long and it's so hot in those low-rise Churches... I haven't been to Sunday liturgy in years."
Re #5 Oh dear, I seem to have led this thread slightly off topic. Probably our esteemed columnist and the other readers would prefer to get back to topics directly geopolitical. I'll be more than happy to discuss this Orthodox/Catholic comparison with you directly. Dr. Trfkovic can put you in touch. Since I am the Orthodox priest and he is the historian and political scientist, he would probably be happy to hand your questions off to me.
Fr. Steven, many of us are either Orthodox Christians or Roman Catholics and would be interested in a discussion of Orthodox/Catholic views and teachings concerning contraception. I believe the Orthodox view, from what I have read, is more nuanced (probably not the right word) about various forms of contraception. Perhaps the Webmaster would allow you to lead a discussion under "Cultural Revolutions."
I believe America has a reproduction problem similar to Russia's, but ours is masked by excessive immigration.
Apologies for the sidetracking; I am just as responsible. I would be happy to discuss the matter elsewhere if possible.
To help bring us back on topic, pjmulvey notes:
I have spent some time in Russia over the past few years. I have heard this sentiment expressed to me many times. Russia has a long memory and understands that its enemies are the Chinese and Muslim extremism. As Dr. Trifkovic notes, there is a clash coming in the future over the fate of eastern Russia with Chinese illegal ‘immigration’ and the abundance of valuable minerals in the area coveted by Beijing.
Most of us here have read or are at least familiar with Jean Raspail's The Camp of the Saints. A Chinese invasion of Siberia was one of the many story arcs within this chilling novel.
The demographic debacle is definitely salient to that particular point as well. China certainly has Taiwan in its sights. Does she have the stomach for the risks entailed by an invasion of Siberia? That is debatable. But if she does, given China's increasing technological prowess, what would be the implications of Russia's demographic situation? Is Russia self-affirmed enough to pull off against the Chinese what the Finns pulled off against the Soviets over 70 years ago?
Mr. Van Sant @ #7 and Mr. Moses - Certainly I would be happy to participate in a discussion of this enormous problem in a forum dedicated to the question.
We have to be honest: the Orthodox position is not nuanced, it is simply confused. This is a gigantic issue the Orthodox hierarchies have to tackle in order to offer any meaningful leadership in saving the historically Orthodox nations. The RC's have a clear position, but the hierarchy and clergy are mostly too cowardly to enforce it (or don't really believe in it themselves). The Orthodox "position" depends on whom you ask.
One conversation I had last year shows how invisible, virtually non-existent, the Orthodox presence has been in dealing with the contraception and demographic winter problem. I had an appointment with Allan Carlson at Hillsdale to talk about my younger daughter's schoolwork, and naturally we fell to talking about his extremely important work at the Howard Center. When I asked him about his encounters with Orthodox clergy or lay activists in his work, his response conveyed, politely, that we were doing very little about this whole thing. Now this is a man who goes all over the world and meets almost everyone who is anyone in pro-life and pro-family work. It was not a happy moment for me, but it certainly confirmed what I had previously thought.
It's past time for an Orthodox Crusade for the natural family. Russia, obviously, is the flagship of worldwide Orthodoxy, and if Russia turns around, big things will start to happen - good things, for a change. Just recently I read on the Howard Center website about a demographics summit in Moscow which began with a blessing by Patriarch Kyrill. Let's hope that good things are beginning to happen.
I approve of Dr. T's published opinions (with some qualifications and observations which I'll withhold for now), but even if I didn't the great discomposure and fear this piece has inspired in the Mossad operatives who prowl the 'Alternative Right' websites is justification enough. Yes, Russia is the dangerous alien but Israel and the Ashkenazim who were, to borrow a metaphor from Milton about the devil, "imprison'd in a sheet of ice" in the tundra of extreme north-western Asia, are born from the very bosom of Teutonic-Catholic Western Europe! I'll say born from our bosom, born with a fork-tongue and lifeless eyes.
What else is new? Dr. Trifkovic hits the nail on the head. Most importantly he does not underestimate "putinofobia" and he says so openly. As far as my 2 cents, I would mention that there are the visible "putinofobia" in the Western media, and there is the latent (silent) but deeper "putinofobia" among the leaders of the EU. Good to know that these will be two 6 year terms - which will provide much needed consistency and firmness (which Putin does not lack) for the other neighbors and their "orange" "strawberry" "velvet" revolutions orchestrated by the West. By now we see that all those tutti-fruti revolutions have fallen on hard times. Today's BBC mentions a sentence of 14 years for Tymoshenko.
Dr. Trfkovic: I just read this on the Russia Today site, about a Russian official fired for telling the truth about the immigration problem - http://rt.com/politics/russia-migration-service-poltoranin/
How does this square with the Putin regime's programme for keeping Russia Russian?
To add fuel to the controversy, the interview was made on April 20, the birthday of Adolph Hitler.
They will seek out any and every pretext to harangue someone. My oh my.
Sorry, but Putin is a total facade. He is going to give the Russian people a facade of strength, while the nation eventually will just dissolve because of the demographic catastrophe that awaits them. The oligarchs have taken over the opposition parties and one prominent billionaire oligarch has joined forces with Putin. The money elites in Russia have done exactly what our elites have done with our political systen, and that is to take it over completely. I once read an article about 12 years agowhen an ex CIA operative admitted that the known goal for the intel agencies was to make both the US and Russia the same. They have almost completed that task. They have propped up a police state in both nations with the illusion of real democracy. The whole thing with Putin trying to re establsih Russia as a real power would be good if it were REAL. He is using the nationalist/populist card to keep the sheeple asleep or in line til the Russian state liquifies. The goal of the world's finiancial elite is to eventually do away with the nation state system. Russia and Germany will be the first ones to go.
"Ex-CIA operative" simply doesn't sound authoritative to me. It could be just about anyone in the CIA, including the person in charge of monitoring international bank transactions and writing reports about the suspicious ones. Such a person could be making a (albeit slightly more educated) speculation, just like anybody.
It is not to undermine your perhaps valid point, but wouldn't the goals or objectives be a senior level matter? Why should middle management get the complete picture, beyond their scope of authority and responsibility?
According to Father Myron Effing (who has served as a Catholic priest in Russia for the last 20 years) only 1% of the entire population of Russia practices any religion at all. That includes Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. So whatever the Orthodox hierarchy may be preaching about contraception (or anything for that matter) it is not being heard by at least 99% of the people.