Mr. Ash on Russia’s potential turn inwards, or a collection of self serving conjectures: a comment by Political Skeptic

Mr. Ash is adept at glibly articulating the American/E.U. Party line on Ukraine. Garnished with a bit of cheer leading for the Coup Government, combined with a misbegotten wish that Putin will some how come round, this is pure fantasy! Mr. Ash’s piece resembles the essays of Mr. David Brooks at the New York Times, in that some of the historical markers are recognizable but it looks like a territory re-imagined in service to ideological ends.

Perhaps, when the blessings of Austerity finally hit home: the slashing of pensions in half and an attempt by NATO to place ABM’s on the Russian border, this low level war with fully ignite, to the joy of Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan.

But here is the piece de resistance:

‘Putin Inc. needs a new and different model. But over his 15 years in power, the regime has appeared unwilling or unable to tolerate the kind of radical reforms now needed, because they likely challenge the very underpinnings of the regime itself.’

The positing of a volte face by Mr. Putin into the ranks of the Neo-Liberal Austerity fold out ranks his earlier exercise in wish fulfillment. I write this on Thursday December 18, 2014, President Obama has announced a plan, an agonizingly timid plan, to normalize relations with Cuba after a half-century of a destructive hold over from the Cold War. The lesson we might draw from this could include both sides in the low level war over Ukraine ( the dangers of imperial adventurism as practiced by America and Russia?), except that a low level banking technocrat with ‘skin in the game’ and an ascertainable ideological myopia seems to miss what might be most relevant,compelling in the question of Ukraine: how many human lives will the American/E.U. alliance sacrifice to their hegemonic ambition?
Political Skeptic

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.