Niall Ferguson is quickly becoming one of my favorite authors. His work is extremely well thought out, well documented and well written. I first read "The Pity of War" and the read "Empire." He's got a well recieved book called "Collosus: The Price of America's Empire" which is on my Amazon.com wish list (if anyone just NEEDS to be buy me a book). I like and respect his knowledge and understanding. So, when someone like this suggests that:
"He [Putin] is fast becoming as big a threat to Western security as he is to Russian democracy"Well, it's time to sit up and take notice. I've long felt that we needed to engage Russia much more closely than we have.
3 comments:
I'd known most of the things that Ferguson points out in similarities between the Weimar and the present Russia. I do think there are some important differences, such as the fact that Russia wasn't punished excessively by a clearly defined victor in the cold war, unlike Germany's constant punishment by France after WWI. I think this matters some, but maybe not enough to counteract the problems related to Chechnya and what they view, appropriately, as terrorist threats.
Too much of the changes that have been pointed to by Ferguson, are due to the Chechnyan conflict. I'm worried that Putin will continue pooling powers that he shouldn't really have. I suppose the time to tell whether this will end in a fascist, or similar styled state, will be when Putin's term comes to an end in 2008. Or if he makes some move to alter the Russian constitution. Or he could just set up another like minded president in his place for a term.
The big problem is that there is very little that the Western countries can do. Oil is propping the Russian economy up right now, and if that fails things could get really ugly. Their economy isn't what you'd call stable. But the oil economy makes the west's ability to effect Russia less potent.
I really love the Guardian blaming the CIA for trying to turn over the elections in Ukraine. Damn, that rag really needs some journalists that live in reality.
All true, but I think it's the constant terrorist attacks that are pushing them towards totalitarianism. We'd be doing the same thing. While Germany was being severely punished from without, it had no real internal issues. Yet, Hitler built at least half his power from pointing to internal problems. So, looking at the reverse, tons of internal problems, little or no external ones... the same result could occur.
You really think that higher levels of terrorism would drive the USA toward totalitarianism? Damn, I would hope not, but, being the realist, I'm close to agreeing with you. And here's why.
The vast majority of the citizenry are exceptionally complacent. If threatened they'd prefer to be protected to maintain their comfort. Just keep my mall and fast food safe, I don't really need that freedom of speech.
Those that aren't complacent are so selfish, that they'd rather be safe, irrelevant of the loss of freedom by parts of the citizenry. These I believe are those people that I'd call the truly rich. I'm sorry to say this, but I think it's true that those with the most money can afford freedoms that most of us can't. Note: I'm not saying all the truly rich. Though I can't see Paris Hilton, or Babs Streisand not sacrificing other peoples rights so that they can live the pampered life that they prefer.
I do think there would be a hell of a fight over all of that though. There are far too many people who would rather fight for their freedom rather than give it up for saftey.
"Better beer and beans on one's feet than cake and ale on one's knees." - Ben Franklin
Post a Comment