janan.ganesh@ft.com on the impossibility of a ‘New Cold War’. Political Skeptic comments.

Even framed by Mr. Ganesh’s potted history of America’s Old Cold War, and the mention of Kennan, but not his ‘The Long Telegram’ nor his ‘Mr. X article’, this reader finds his whole article lacks anything like a viable case that The New Cold War is not at full cry,  even in his own newspaper. This headline speaks volumes as to an argued political sophistication, of American citizens: The US is too changed since the cold war to repeat it’ Here are a set of ‘reviews and assessments’ of Kennan’s career, and the evolution of his thought’s on his ‘Containment Theory’     

The Journal of Cold War Studies Volume 15,Number 4 of the Fall of 2013 offers this:

FORUM: George F. Kennan and the Cold War: Perspectives on John Gaddis’s Biography


Gone is the use of the telling aphorisms, and other Ganesh rhetorical signatures. It reads like low political comedy, that demands, deserves more focused application of serious thought!    

Political Skeptic 


My reply to  Making it right :

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Yet this, ‘The author penned an observation. This was not an essay or thesis.’ , doesn’t quite match the evidence of the essays’ intent, which was to declare that a New Cold War can’t exist , argued ,absent Mr. Ganesh’s usual curlicues, to borrow from Auden, …

Yet the fact of Biden’s comment on Putin, goaded by Stephanopoulos: Note that Biden attacks Putin, framed theologically, utterly preposterous, almost comic if …

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Director of National Intelligence came out with a report today saying that Vladimir Putin authorized operations during the election to under — denigrate you, support President Trump, undermine our elections, divide our society. What price must he pay?

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: He will pay a price. I, we had a long talk, he and I, when we — I know him relatively well. And I– the conversation started off, I said, “I know you and you know me. If I establish this occurred, then be prepared.”

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You said you know he doesn’t have a soul.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I did say that to him, yes. And — and his response was, “We understand one another.” It was– I wasn’t being a wise guy. I was alone with him in his office. And that — that’s how it came about. It was when President Bush had said, “I looked in his eyes and saw his soul.”

I said, “Looked in your eyes and I don’t think you have a soul.” And looked back and he said, “We understand each other.” Look, most important thing dealing with foreign leaders in my experience, and I’ve dealt with an awful lot of ’em over my career, is just know the other guy. Don’t expect somethin’ that you’re– that — don’t expect him to– or her to– voluntarily appear in the second editions of Profiles in Courage.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you know Vladimir Putin. You think he’s a killer?


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So what price must he pay?

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: The price he’s gonna pay we’ll– you’ll see shortly. I’m not gonna– there’s– by the way, we oughta be able that ol’ — that trite expression “walk and chew gum at the same time,” there’re places where it’s in our mutual interest to work together.


 And Blinken’s comments on China:

We will push back, if necessary, when China uses coercion and aggression to get its way,” Blinken said.’


Biden and Blinken are still operating on the notion that Trump was the political creature of Putin. In sum ‘soft on Putin’. as the in order too of an utterly misbegotten the Biden/Blinken strategy of ‘getting tough’ on both China and Russia. This a demonstration that the fictional ‘Russia Interference’ in the 2016 election still lives and breathes as political subtext!

Even considering Mr. Ganesh’s rhetorical gifts, he like Jonathan Freedland, writes political fiction, in service to a respectable bourgeoise politics!



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.