The peripatetic Mr. Blair missed Ms. Tett’s essay on a speech by economist Benjamin Friedman:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/927efd1e-9c32-11e4-b9f8-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl

Mr. Benjamin Friedman’s full address here:

Click to access friedman.pdf

Mr. Friedman, in his address, speaks forthrightly about a pattern of debt forgiveness that was granted to Germany in 1924, 1929, 1932 and 1953. Mr. Blair scolding admonishment to the debtors, the Greeks and their soon to be successors, is patently obvious, but unsurprisingly history tells a different story!

Mr. Blair offers the usual Neo-Liberal apologetics: the Free Market upon it’s ignominious failure is replaced by the mirage of Austerity, and then Structural Reform combined with economic growth etc., etc. with asides about the danger of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ extremists. Mark well the Greeks as the harbingers of the complete failure of the myth of Market Discipline. The problem with Neo-Liberalism is that with each dismal failure the prescription of it’s apologists/rationalizers is more Neo-Liberalism. See Philip Murowski’s Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To Waste:

Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste

Mr. Blair engages in  fear mongering about political extremism,  tangentially mentions Putin as The New Stalin, and then offers himself and his fellow Neo-Liberals as the ‘centrists’ capable of producing the answer to the Crisis. Yet both New Labor and The New Democrats were the central civic/political actors whose Financial Reform led directly to the 2008 financial collapse. Mr. Blair’s essay is a riff on his usual speech, that he charges handsomely for, full of foreboding about encroaching ‘extremism’ and self-congratulation about the ‘moderation’ that he and his fellow travelers offer as an alternative.

Almost Marx

‘We don’t want a new Cold War’  Ms. Applebaum/Mrs.Sikorski has lent her wan propaganda skill to that very end! She and her cohorts Judy Dempsey, Strobe Talbott, David Frum and their allies in the Obama administration:Rice,Nuland,Pyatt,Power and host of others are making it their number one priority to stir up War Fever. To focus on Russian crimes, in an effort to hide the Crimes of the Coup, and the governments who supported it :They brought down a legitimate but corrupt government, and ushered in a government whose slogan of ‘national renewal’ included  prominent positions for Right Sector and Svoboda. The point of the ‘Security Conference’, besides institutionalized political self-congratulation, is the manufacture of more US,EU,NATO intellectual/political moralizing, led by Think Tank denizens and their political allies in or out of government. Who trade on their reputations as policy technocrats i.e. The New Cold Warriors, Ms. Applebaum being one very prominent member of that nihilistic guild!
Political  Skeptic

Is the fact that Ms. Applebaum/Mrs. Sikorsky should issue such a ringing endorsement of the demonstrably failed successor to the Free Market Delusion, Austerity, be anything like a surprise?
A number of dissenting opinions on the notion of Austerity’s putative success:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/06/11/economic_austerity_how_it_failed_in_one_chart.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/06/joseph_stiglitz_austerity_failed_greece_partner/
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/greece-eurozone-austerity-reform-by-joseph-e–stiglitz-2015-02
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/06/how-case-austerity-has-crumbled/
The alliance between the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Liberals is of long standing: Ms. Applebaum is a Neo-Con in all but name. But the fact that her badly cobbled together propaganda realizes itself in this argument : the social/political potency of the idea/practice of ‘national renewal’ as a particular historical/political aspiration across Europe ending in the alliance of Right and Left, as she narrates the story. Need we, as readers, look any further that the Coup Government of Ukraine as an object lesson of this narrative? Right Sector and Svoboda are active participants in that Coup Government. In view of this, should the Greek’s be offered the same tolerance/acceptance that Ms. Applebaum not only accepts but celebrates as worthy of our approbation and material aid in Ukraine?
Please don’t mention the collusion between the banks/investment houses and Greek Oligarchs to hide the reality of the actual condition of Greek indebtedness, it is antithetical to this writer’s ideologically charged essay. The Putin hysteria mongering, Russophobia is a function of The New Cold War rhetoric that the Neo-Cons/R2P zealots have adopted in anticipation of WWIII, and her marriage to Radosław Sikorski Polish politician and journalist.

Political Observer

Mr.Casey Michel’s essay is not quite as persuasive as it might be, although his commentary is not without it’s merits, in convincing the Foreign Policy elite of his virtues.
Although this paragraph is not surprising, but what follows this paragraph is the cynicism of a Cold War Hack like has been Strobe Talbott:
‘After all, this isn’t some war of religious schism or broader ethnic demarcation, as the Crimean War or the break-up of Yugoslavia presented. Nor is it a war to retain Russia’s territorial integrity, as in Chechnya. This is a war within Orthodoxy, within Slavdom—and the Russian populace, by and large, will not have loved ones die for it.’
‘A war within Orthodoxy, within Slavdom’? : a religious/cultural war? Or a territorial/ethnic dispute, a hold over from Soviet times: creating political doubt, uncertainty is a Neo-Con strategy.
That elite is equal to a herd of independent minds that brought us the Ukrainian Coup: Victoria Nuland, Jeffrey Pyatt, and of course Susan Rice and Samantha Power. The bungling Neo-Cons and their R2P allies.  Mr. Michel must prove that he is material for promotion to one of those top spots reserved for the propaganda apologists for the floundering, but still quite lethal, American National Security State. He acquits himself with a certain careerist aplomb!
Instead of this nearly competent essay seek out Mr. Wolfgang Ischinger’s fear mongering essay at The Financial Times at the link:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6b91cdfc-ac78-11e4-9d32-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3QpCAzHtl
Mr. Ischinger brings a level sophistication and polish to the demonization of Putin, in the more restrained rhetorical environment of the ultra-respectable Financial Times.
Both essays share in common the lead character of Putin The Terrible and/or Putin as The New Stalin, with the added dimension, that we as readers have, of that leaked Pentagon document that ‘proves’ Putin suffers from Aspergers. How unfortunate that this nugget was unavailable to our two scribblers!

Political Observer

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e0332f12-ac59-11e4-9d32-00144feab7de.html#axzz3QpCAzHtl
I read with foreboding the nearly unhinged paranoia mongering about Putin as the New Stalin, in the Stephens essay: the New Cold War is upon us with the same Party Line as the old Cold War, a rehearsal of shopworn political/historical chatter: us versus Putin, we are the sane,the rational ones, he is the power mad megalomaniac. Cliche piled on cliche in homage to the last Cold War. We don’t have to search for our Nixons or McCarthys, we have Mr. Stephens, Strobe Talbott, Samantha Power, Victoria Nuland and assorted Ukrainian allies, of various loathsome political hues.
Political Cynic

Here is an excerpt from a transcript of comments by Strobe Talbott (Russia Hand) and a comment from Stephen Cohen on his comment from Democracy Now:

STROBE TALBOTT: In the context of what is happening in Ukraine today, the right way to characterize it is an act of war on the part of the Russian Federation. This means that there is going on in Ukraine today a literal invasion, not by—it’s not a proxy war. It’s a literal invasion by the Russian armed forces. It’s a literal occupation of large parts, well beyond Crimea, of eastern Ukraine. And it is a virtual annexation of a lot of territory other than just the Crimea. And in that respect, this is a major threat to the peace of Europe, to the peace of Eurasia, and therefore a threat to the interests of the United States and, I would say, a threat to the chances of a peaceful 21st century.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, now president of Brookings. Your response?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, he’s much more than that. People need to drop their masks and say what their personal stake in this is. Strobe Talbott, whom I’ve known for years, was the architect of the American policy that led to this crisis. He was “the Russia hand,” as he called his memoir, under President Clinton, when the expansion of NATO toward Russia began.

Understand what he said—and the rollout of this report has been coming. And if you look at the signatures, these are the leaders of the American war party, the people who literally want a military showdown with Russia. Stop and think what that means. Stop and think what that means, as though Russia is going to back off. But the people who signed this report—and they’ve been bringing it out for days—are saying that the—he literally just said this—the future of the 21st century is at stake in Ukraine. Stop and think what that means. Then he went on to say things that are fundamentally untrue, that Russia has invaded and annexed eastern Ukraine. I mean, when the State Department was asked a few weeks ago, “Can you confirm the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine?” the State Department, which misleads about this story all the time, said, “No, we cannot.” So what are—this is what I’m talking about the fog of war, where we’re being told Russia has annexed eastern Ukraine, the stake of the world is at—the future of the world is at stake here, and basically they’re calling for war with Russia.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/3/is_ukraine_a_proxy_western_russia

Here is a link to Wolfgang Ischinger Financial Times essay of February 4, 2015 titled ‘Pledge weapons for Ukraine or the violence will go on’, the argument presented seems self-evident from the title:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6b91cdfc-ac78-11e4-9d32-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3QpCAzHtl

Mr. Ischinger is the Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, that by this Wikipedia account has supported the Ukrainian Coup government. The 50th Munich Security Conference was held from 31 January to 2 February 2014.

A dominant theme of the conference was the violent clashes between government and opposition in Ukraine. At the Munich Security Conference US Secretary of State John Kerry promised the Ukrainian opposition support from the West.^[20] The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the Western countries of assisting in the violent uprising in Ukraine which was getting out of control. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on the other hand, accused Russia of violating Ukraine’s rights to a free choice of alliances.^[21] The Ukrainian politician Vitali Klitschko accused the Ukrainian government during a panel discussion of responding with acts of terror and violence to the demands of the opposition.^[22] Klitschko called for economic sanctions against those responsible for the violence. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara dismissed the allegations that his country’s political policies were directed against Europe. Since Ukraine is geographically part of Europe and also carries a very close relationship with Russia, Koschara warned, it should not be faced with the decision “Europe or Russia”. The Foreign Minister also declared that Ukraine had already met key demands of the opposition.^[23] His claims that the violence in Ukraine started from terrorists, was countered by Klitschko by distributing a collection of images of the protests in Ukraine to panel participants and spectators.^[24] During the conference Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, started a mediation initiative, inviting members of the Ukrainian parties in conflict and the Foreign Ministers of important EU countries to participate.^[25] During the conference, Swiss Federal President Didier Burkhalter, in in his capacity as OSCE Chairman, pointed out again an existing offer of mediation of the OSCE to the conflicting parties in the Ukraine.^[26]Zbigniew Brzezinski, Leonid Kozhara, Vitali Klychko, Leonid Slutsky, Irakli Garibashvili, Traian Basescu and Štefan Füle participated in a discussion panel regarding the situation in Ukraine.^[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Security_Conference

Succeeding the Wolfgang Ischinger piece of February 4th  is this essay by Philip Stephens of February 5th titled ‘Ukraine is only part of Putin’s game plan’

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e0332f12-ac59-11e4-9d32-00144feab7de.html#axzz3QpCAzHtl

The Stephens column trades on anti-Putin hysteria mongering: Putin’s putative Machiavellianism, in pursuit of a more effective  propaganda. The Ischinger essay acts as the introductory phase of that endeavor, to shape, not debate, but a carefully massaged and easily exploited public perception, controlled by respectable bourgeois pundits and policy technocrats: beholden not to their readers, but to the corporations that own and control a government friendly press.

But the ultimate proof of Putin as the New Stalin, a political monster, is this leaked Pentagon document of 2008, identified as the ‘source’  in this report from The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11392680/Vladimir-Putin-suffers-from-Aspergers-syndrome-Pentagon-report-claims.html

The timing for this ‘revelation’ couldn’t have been more apt or more politically convenient. The headline and sub-headline says it all:

Vladimir Putin suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, Pentagon report claims

US Pentagon report from 2008 concluded that ‘the Russian President carries a neurological abnormality’, described as ‘a form of autism’

Political Skeptic

The long night of Neo-Liberalism, and it successor Austerity, is at an end? And it’s end came when those lazy, profligate Southerners got tired of the political/economic wisdom of their Northern betters: Teutons and Anglo-Saxons vs the Latins/Greeks? Don’t mention that corrupt bankers/investment houses and Greek Oligarchs colluded with each other, to hide the level of indebtedness and a near economic collapse ensued. All neatly packaged by the Economist under the title of ‘Beware Greeks voting for gifts’ : a not so subtle riff on Ayn Rand’s Makers and Takers, and other such locutions favored by the apologists for a failed experiment in the Free Market. The hysteria mongering at The Economist is at fever pitch, as the thought that others might follow, leads to a rhetoric suffused with panic and political desperation, masquerading as a kind of self-defensive political wisdom. As the shaky edifice crumbles, but more pointedly the very foundation of the Neo-Liberal delusion proves to be in a state of collapse.
Some further thoughts on two portions of this informative yet ideologically charged essay:

‘Discussions with Brussels are only part of the story. Any bail-out extension must be approved by parliaments in Germany, Finland, the Netherlands and Estonia: four countries not renowned for their forbearance towards fiscal sinners. The attitudes of such hardline governments will matter at least as much as those of EU institutions.’

Note the ‘fiscal sinners’ theology as the very center of The Economist’s argument!

‘As ever, the looming Greek crisis is about far more than Greece. Going soft on Greece may also embolden Syriza-like parties in other countries (see article). In Spain Podemos, a party that emerged from nowhere to lead the polls, has closely allied itself with Syriza. Its leader, Pablo Iglesias, singles out Mrs Merkel, with her ruthless demands for austerity, as the foe of Europe’s downtrodden. It is perhaps no coincidence that ministers from Spain and Portugal, both run by centre-right governments facing anti-austerity challenges in elections this year, were among the first to warn of the dangers of dancing to Syriza’s tune after the election.’

As ever the ‘Left’ remains the ghost that looms large over the failing realm of Neo-Liberalism.

Almost Marx

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21641251-syrizas-success-increases-risk-grexit-and-will-embolden-anti-austerity-parties-across?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/bewaregreeksvotingforgifts

‘The same guarded hopefulness applies to an Economist editor’s only true master: the liberal credo of open markets and individual freedom.’

This valedictory oration is made up of Neo-Liberal rationalizations, apologetics all framed in the self-exculpatory: a defense of freedom and Free Markets garnished by the current declinism made popular by Niall Ferguson and Mr. Fukuyayma, and a host scribbling epigones.
Call it shopworn at best, although Mr. Micklethwait writes with a certain ideological brio e. g. the foul calumny that a Capital set free by the Financial Reform of 1999, in America, is to blame for the Crisis of 2008. And other such injustices, and an unmentioned ‘Left’ that haunts this essay: it’s shade the ever-present Prof. Piketty.
This essay should take it’s place beside Mr Micklethwait and Mr. Wooldridge’s almost prescient The Right Nation.
Political Skeptic
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21641204-john-micklethwait-who-has-edited-newspaper-2006-leaves-today-these-are-his-parting

Here, in sum, is the central conceit of Ms. Applebaum’s hysteria mongering essay, the patient reader is rewarded with this indictment of Russia under Putin, the Party Line of the Neo-Con/R2P menage, as refracted through the Litvinenko murder, all is revealed as in bad fiction, in her concluding paragraph :

‘ If we are serious about halting the growth of a Russian regime which is not only corrupt but also dangerous, posing a security threat to London as well as the rest of Europe, the best thing we can do is change this attitude. We should enforce our own laws, not only pursuing any alleged murder and treating Russian criminal cases with the seriousness they deserve, but closing the loopholes and ending the accounting tricks that have helped enrich a kleptocratic elite.’

Ms. Applebaum is a professional Russophobe i.e. a political ally of the Neo-Cons and R2P zealots that enabled the Ukrainian Coup, with billions of American dollars and substantial investment of EU money. The cast of characters:Victoria Nuland, Amb. Pyatt,Yats, allied with Right Sector and Svoboda who acted as enablers for the coup, that ousted the utterly corrupt but duly elected Viktor Yanukovich. Add to that list the zealous Samantha Power, Susan Rice and an utterly disingenuous and or clueless President Obama. And please don’t forget Ms. Applebaum’s newest idee fixe of ‘Terrorism’. For a counterpoint to this extended commentary  see her essay at Slate of January 23, 2015 that cautions the reader against over-reacting to ‘Terrorism’, in the Charlie Hebdo massacres :

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/01/europe_s_response_to_charlie_hebdo_attacks_europe_shouldn_t_overreact_to.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_bot

How is it that the evil political mastermind  Putin, in her wobbly myth-making narrative, is connected to Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun? That is the central question that Ms. Applebaum leaves unanswered, but simply by rhetorical proximity might lead to an unavoidable conclusion, or should I characterize it as a jump? History is not Ms. Applebaum’s strong suit, as the case of  dissident Georgi Markov demonstrates, he was killed in London street, in 1978, by means of ricin impregnated pellets, fired into his leg via an umbrella wielded by a Bulgarian secret police operative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov

Political Observer

We are asked today, as readers of the august Financial Times, to choose between the Neo-Liberalism of Mr. Rachman or Mr. Wolf. How predictable that the utter failure of Free Market Capitalism, which found it’s first iterations in the rise of the politics and the ersatz moralizing of Thatcher/Reagan, to it’s shuddering collapse in 2008. And all the apologists/rationalizers, not to speak of the profiteers, economic buccaneers, that played such a prominent role in the Greek debacle are household names, of course unmentioned in these pages, the watchword in bourgeois political respectability.

Mr. Rachman abuses the tolerance of his readers with Left and Right hysteria mongering and extemporizes on the shopworn cliche of the industrious northerner/shiftless southerner, a self-serving political/historical amnesia is the rule of the political moment. Yet Mr. Wolf and his model offers debt mitigation tied to the elusively undefined ‘reform’: to reform Neo-Liberalism demands even more Neo-Liberalism: see Philip Mirowski’s Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste for a history, intellectual and political, of the Neo-Liberal Thought Collective. The near conversation between Rachman and Wolf was instructive, not about the failure of the Neo-Liberal economic model, but about the limits/parameters of the debate in the respectable bourgeois press.

Almost Marx