International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Pat Buchanan: Is Putin the ‘Preeminent Statesman’ of Our Times?
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/articles/is-pu ... eminent-statesman-of-our-times
Published: Mar 31, 2017
Author: Patrick J. Buchanan
Post Date: 2017-03-31 12:49:34 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 564
Comments: 7
“If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time. “On the world stage, who could vie with him?” So asks Chris Caldwell of the Weekly Standard in a remarkable essay in Hillsdale College’s March issue of its magazine, Imprimis.[How to Think About Vladimir Putin, March 2017] What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders? “When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that. “In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national- state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.” Putin’s approval rating, after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Trump’s? Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization. What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first. And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism. The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a “killer.” He invaded and occupies Ukraine. His old KGB comrades assassinate journalists, defectors and dissidents. Yet while politics under both czars and commissars has often been a blood sport in Russia, what has Putin done to his domestic enemies to rival what our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has done to the Muslim Brotherhood he overthrew in a military coup in Egypt? What has Putin done to rival what our NATO ally President Erdogan has done in Turkey, jailing 40,000 people since last July’s coup—or our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte, who has presided over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of drug dealers? Does anyone think President Xi Jinping would have handled mass demonstrations against his regime in Tiananmen Square more gingerly than did President Putin this last week in Moscow? Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia’s interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant. He not only remains popular in his own country, but has admirers in nations whose political establishments are implacably hostile to him. In December, one poll found 37 percent of all Republicans had a favorable view of the Russian leader, but only 17 percent were positive on President Barack Obama. There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America’s elite do not take even a neutral stance. Putin has read the new century better than his rivals. While the 20th century saw the world divided between a Communist East and a free and democratic West, new and different struggles define the 21st. The new dividing lines are between social conservatism and self-indulgent secularism, between tribalism and transnationalism, between the nation-state and the New World Order. On the new dividing lines, Putin is on the side of the insurgents. Those who envision de Gaulle’s Europe of Nations replacing the vision of One Europe, toward which the EU is heading, see Putin as an ally. So the old question arises: Who owns the future? In the new struggles of the new century, it is not impossible that Russia—as was America in the Cold War—may be on the winning side. Secessionist parties across Europe already look to Moscow rather than across the Atlantic. “Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism,” writes Caldwell. “That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that’s true even here.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
That is a question that should be taken very seriously! He'd be a big improvement over the disgraces we've had over here lately.
Marguerite sure had the hots for him. Are you jealous?
Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
I don't recall her getting the vapors over Buchanan but perhaps so. LP is offline now. You can check it yourself. So there is no way to verify whether Marguerite liked him or not. I would think I would recall it if she did since I posted more to her than most anyone else. Putin is and always was a ruthless and vicious KGB killer. He is not exactly qualified to be the new pope.
I noticed that the other day when I was trying to check something out. What happened? I got an error page that said the domain had expired or something like that. Their registrar says they haven't updated their required email address or some such record-keeping requirement. I assume that the server is still there but they just haven't noticed or don't care any more. Did we really think they would keep it up forever? Probably not.
I don't think anyone considers a pope to be presidential material. It's a different sphere of leadership. As for whether he's a KGB killer, who knows? And I don't believe any CIA killers are disqualified from US presidency. And I'm totally confident there are some still on the job. The fact remains that Putin DID oversee a tremendous economic recovery of Russia. He did for Russia what the vast majority of Trump supporters are hoping Trump will do for the USA. Putin did indeed "Make Russia Great Again". Or maybe he just made it great. Was it ever great before? Maybe not. Putin has proven himself, and the interviews and writings of him I've seen show him to be down to earth, smart, reasonably modest, and genuinely interested in a peaceful coexistence with the USA. If there is any truth to his being a player in Podesta's email hacking.... if... then I'd say it may have been done in the name of averting war with the US, which I'd consider a sound moral cause. Putin is indeed a great statesman, as far as I can see. Whether Trump will be as good as Putin has yet to be seen.
#2. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
Is Putin the ‘Preeminent Statesman’ of Our Times?
#3. To: Tooconservative (#1)
#4. To: nativist nationalist (#3)
(Edited)
Marguerite sure had the hots for him.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#4)
LP is offline now. You can check it yourself.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#6. To: Deckard (#5)
#7. To: Tooconservative (#4)
Putin is and always was a ruthless and vicious KGB killer. He is not exactly qualified to be the new pope.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]