On the murder of Nemtsov and the New Cold War: a comment by Political Observer

A moving tribute to Mr. Nemtsov, yet how convenient that he should be murdered at such a pivotal historical moment! Or is Conspiracy Theory verboten at his publication, except in regard Putin? War hysteria/propaganda, in the West, has reached a kind of denouement. One can’t open such respectable bourgeois publications as the New York Review of Books, the Washington Post, the New York Times or even the tawdry Daily Beast, without some scribbler or policy intellectual and or more importantly a credentialed Foreign Policy expert, falling in line with the latest update on The Party Line: Putin as the New Stalin. All of these developments coming after the Coup in Ukraine, for Coup it was, despite President Obama’s assurances to the contrary. We can’t ignore the billions spent by Victoria Nuland and The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies to secure a western foothold at Russia’s very border?  Or is our ethical/political position a selective,self-serving myopia?

There is no doubt that Putin is a thug, yet a thug elected by a majority of Russians: we could have called Bush II that very name.

I’m currently reading The Georgetown Set, Friends and Rivals in Cold War Washington by Gregg Herken. A gossipy, very readable at some points, and at others bathetic. The Alsop brothers are the featured players in this historical melodrama, and quite informative it is. Also see Edwin Yoder’s Joe Alsop’s Cold War for a portrait of an Cold Warrior who actually had some experience of war, not as some abstract idea, but as a bitter uncomfortable existential fact, in World War II and Korea. Most of the propagandists for the New Cold War have no idea of what war is, and it’s attendant suffering, deprivation or death, nor the requisite moral imagination to engage in a reflection that might yield a fitting humility.

Political Observer


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.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.