Book Review: “Winter Is Coming” By Garry Kasparov — And Its Relevance To Rex Tillerson’s Confirmation Hearings
Garry Kasparov, the Russian human rights activist and former chess champion, recently published a book titled Winter Is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped. With the confirmation of Rex Tillerson in the news, Kasparov’s book is as timely as ever. The central message of Kasparov’s book is a stark warning to America: Vladimir Putin is not your friend. He is a dictator who intends to rule Russia for the rest of his life, and to murder anyone who gets in his way. “Engagement” with him is not the answer. Opposing him is — while still befriending the Russian people, and standing up for dissidents, freedom, and democracy.
Marco Rubio made very similar points stirringly in yesterday’s confirmation hearings for Rex Tillerson: friend of Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump’s candidate for Secretary of State. In this book review I want to use some excerpts from Senator Rubio’s questioning of Tillerson (as well as a couple of other video clips) to illustrate some of Kasparov’s themes. (This is a long post, but I promise you that it’s worth your time. If you’re short on time, I ask you to bookmark it, and come back to it over the next day or two, while these hearings are still in the news.)
Let’s start with a 45-second clip from Rubio on “moral clarity” in foreign policy:
Kasparov makes his points, at all times, with perfect moral clarity. No matter what you think you know about Vladimir Putin, you’re bound to learn new things from Kasparov’s book — and if you have a heart, it cannot fail to be touched. Some of the stories I had never heard about. Others I had heard about — but I knew only part of the story.
“How come I am still alive? When I really think about it, it’s a miracle.”
These are the words of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, as quoted by Kasparov. He describes her as a fearless journalist who exposed Putin’s atrocities in Chechnya, and who had relentlessly criticized Putin and the FSB (the successor to the KGB). In 2004, on the way to help negotiate with the Chechen terrorists holding children and others hostage in Beslan, she was poisoned but did not die. (Yet.)
Here is a video of Politkovskaya talking about how Russia under Putin has become a Neo-Soviet state in which there is no freedom of speech.
How could someone like Politkovskaya say something like that and be allowed to live? you might ask. The answer is: she couldn’t. She was murdered in a contract killing at her apartment building on October 7, 2006.
Here is former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko (more about him in a moment) saying that Vladimir Putin was responsible for Politkovskaya’s death:
Litvinenko says he had been a friend of Politkovskaya’s, and that she had told him that she had been threatened by Putin and had wondered whether Putin and his confederates could actually kill her. Litvinenko told her they could, and advised Politkovskaya to leave the country. He says he had evidence that the Kremlin had her killed, but that it was seized by police. He says Politkovskaya could not have been killed without Putin having ordered it.
Alexander Litvinenko
Most Americans who read the news have heard something about Alexander Litvinenko — even if they don’t recognize the name — because of the colorful way he himself was murdered, like something out of a spy novel. In 2006, Litvinenko was poisoned by what the New York Times called “a highly toxic and rare isotope, polonium 210.” Kasparov calls it the first known case of nuclear terrorism. After a lengthy inquiry, a final report issued by a retired High Court judge in Britain in January 2016 concluded that it was probable Putin had ordered the murder. As the New York Times reported:
The polonium that was used to poison Mr. Litvinenko, the judge said, had probably come from a Russian reactor, and he said there were “powerful motives for organizations and individuals within the Russian state to take action” against the former K.G.B. officer.
There are many possible reasons that Vladimir Putin wanted Litvinenko killed — and Litvinenko, a former KGB agent, elaborated on many of them in a long article in the Daily Mail written after he had been poisoned, and published shortly after his death. But Kasparov focuses on one possible motivation that I find particularly interesting: Litvinenko’s role in helping to expose the possible involvement of Putin in terrorist bombings of his own countrymen.
In 1999, when Putin was Yeltsin’s prime minister, a series of bombings in Russia had been attributed to Chechen separatists. In the town of Ryazan, a resident of an apartment building saw men carrying large sugar bags filled with white powder into the apartment basement. The resident called the police, who found the bags connected to a detonator. Chemical tests at the scene revealed the presence of the same type of explosive used in the previous bombings thought to be carried about by the Chechens. Putin praised the police and the alert citizen.
But then something weird happened. The director of the FSB announced that the planting of the bags was simply a training exercise by the FSB to test the public’s vigilance. There had been no explosives in the bags, he claimed, just sugar. Why announce this, after Putin himself had treated the discovery as a foiled terror plot? Because local police had already developed evidence tying the planting of the bags to FSB agents. Left unexplained: why the initial tests of mere sugar had revealed explosives. Suspicions increased with reports of soldiers having previously discovered sugar bags at a nearby military base with a “strange substance” that turned to be the explosive in question.
The bottom line is that there is evidence that Putin and the FSB were actually behind some of the bombings that were attributed to the Chechens — and Litvinenko helped make the case. Kasparov writes (with a droll conclusion — wait for it):
A deep investigation and analysis of the case were turned into a devastating book by former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko, Blowing Up Russia. The same Litvinenko, who had become a fierce Putin critic, was assassinated in London in 2006 with the rare radioactive substance polonium-210. An independent FSB invetsigator of the case, Mikhail Trepashkin, was arrested a week before hearings began and jailed for four years. In 2000, the Duma twice rejected calls for a parliamentary investigation of what happened in Ryazan. All evidence and internal documents related to Ryazan were then sealed on the grounds of secrecy for seventy-five years. While I admit to developing the healthy paranoia developed by most people born in totalitarian states, this all seems like an overreaction over three bags of sugar.
In an interesting twist, the possible false-flag operation was referred to by Senator Rubio in his questioning of Rex Tillerson yesterday. After discussing the bombings across Russia attributed to Chechen terrorists, Rubio said:
By the way, there’s a credible body of reporting, open source and other, that this was all, all those bombings were part of a black flag operation on the part of the FSB.
In Litvinenko’s final statement he clearly pointed the finger at Putin, in dramatic and unforgettable fashion, as the man responsible for his death:
[A]s I lie here I can distinctly hear the beating of wings of the angel of death.
I may be able to give him the slip but I have to say my legs do not run as fast as I would like.
I think, therefore, that this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition.
You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.
You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value.
You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women.
You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.
By the way, Litvinenko, in his piece about why Putin wanted him dead, says:
Shortly afterwards, I myself became the centre of a scandal when my unit was ordered to plan the assassination of Boris Berezovsky, the entrepreneur-turned-politician who was close to President Yeltsin.
Berezovsky is cited by Kasparov in several places in the book as an example of an oligarch who, because he did not pay total allegiance to Putin, had his company stolen by Putin. The Putin tactic is this: if you oppose him and you run a company, Putin will charge you with made-up crimes. Then he will seize your company and distribute it to his cronies. This is what Putin ultimately did to Berezovsky. The same sort of tactics allowed Putin to seize control of media outlets, and terrorize others into reporting only favorable information about him.
Phony charges are used against all dissenters. Even Kasparov was brought up on his own false charges of resisting arrest, until social media-derived photos and videos proved that the injuries he was accused of having inflicted upon an officer were already visible on the officer’s body before the officer came into contact with Kasparov.
One more thing I had been unaware of before reading Kasparov’s book: remember that awful hostage situation in Beslan? I alluded to it above while discussing how Anna Politkovskaya was poisoned on the way to trying to defuse it. Chechen terrorists took hundreds of schoolchildren and others hostage at a school in Beslan. Several hostages were killed right away. Then, on the third day, two explosions rocked the gymnasium where the hostages were being held. The usual story is that the terrorists caused the explosions because they were trying to kill everyone. This forced Russian troops to storm the gymnasium to save the rest, the story goes. Unfortunately, they couldn’t save everyone, and 186 children died along with an even greater number of adults.
But Kasparov notes that an expert on combustion physics produced a report showing that, in fact, the explosions had been caused by Russian troops. The first was a shot from a flame thrower, and the second “was caused by a high explosive fragmentation grenade.” These explosions together caused a huge fire and resulted in the collapse of the roof, killing the majority of the hostages. The government quickly cleaned up the crime scene and told several provable lies regarding what had happened. Putin used the incident to justify further weakening democratic reforms.
So Vladimir Putin’s thuggish tactics likely cost the lives of 186 schoolchildren.
And let’s not forget that Vladimir Putin armed the separatists in Eastern Ukraine who, on July 17, 2014, blew Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 out of the sky, killing all 298 civilians on board. Kasparov writes:
Blaming Putin for these 298 deaths is as correct and pointless as blaming the man who pressed the button that launched the missile. Everyone had known for months that Russia arms and supports the separatists in Ukraine. Everyone had known for years that a mouse does not squeak in the Russian government without first getting Putin’s permission. So yes, Putin is responsible for those 298 deaths, more than anyone else.
Why is the blame pointless, then? Because, Kasparov explains, Putin is like the scorpion in the famous fable of the scorpion and the frog. Rather than trying to change the scorpion’s nature, we should focus on “how the civilized world can contain the dangerous creature before more innocents die.”
There are many, many more stories than I have told here, all discussed by Kasparov, of opponents of Putin who have been killed, brought up on spurious charges, or otherwise terrorized. And yet, despite as Marco Rubio so effectively revealed, Rex Tillerson is unwilling to state that Vladimir Putin “and his cronies” are responsible for the murder of “countless dissidents, journalists, and political opponents.” Watch this short minute-long clip:
Kasparov’s solution is not to boycott Russia, but simply to be honest about what they are doing, and not provide Putin with legitimacy. Do not treat Vladimir Putin as just another well-intentioned leader, Kasparov advises. Keep human rights at the forefront of American policy.
If they [Western leaders] truly wish to honor my fearless friend [Boris Nemtsov, yet another Putin critic who was murdered in the middle of Moscow in 2015], they should declare in the strongest terms that Russia will be treated like the criminal rogue regime it is for as long as Putin is in power. Call off the sham negotiations. Sell weapons to Ukraine that will put an unbearable political price on Putin’s aggression. Tell every Russian oligarch that there is no place their money will be safe in the West as long as they serve Putin.
I may not agree with every one of Kasparov’s aggressive prescriptions, but his entreaty to focus on human rights and to support the dissidents is passionate and well stated — and it is echoed in the peroration of Senator Rubio’s comments yesterday. I leave you with this impassioned clip of Rubio arguing that we cannot abandon dissidents in repressive regimes across the world. This 90-second clip is one of the most inspiring and compelling statements I have ever heard from Marco Rubio — and I know Kasparov agrees with Senator Rubio’s message here.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
demonizing foreign leaders even when they’re demons has led failmerica to do incredibly stupid things in the past (laughingstock)
thing what got a lot of their own soldiers killed
and cost a lot of money (understatement)
and persuaded idiot failmericans to elect a genocidal jew-hating halfwit like Barack Obama
no thank you I say
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/12/2017 @ 5:33 amoops *things* what got a lot of their own soldiers killed i mean
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/12/2017 @ 5:42 amWasn’t that Jimmy Carter’s approach to Foreign Policy? How did that work out?
Charles Harkins (be8e70) — 1/12/2017 @ 5:49 amMr Marco Rubio is a serious man.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:14 amSay what you want about Obama (I do)
1. He ousted Putin’s puppet in the Ukraine;
2. He got Putin into a border war with the Ukraine;
3. He won world opinion (FWIW) over Putin’s takeover of the Crimea;
4. He got Putin into a counter-insurgency war in Syria (unfortunately Arabs are not Vietnamese but that’s not Obama’s fault); and
5. He imposed sanctions that do hurt Russian kleptocrats in the pocket; make them worry about the security of their money in the West; and limit the number of warm, sunny places for their villas.
What Obama failed to consider is the collateral consequences of all those actions on Exxon-Mobil and the future value of Rex Tillerson’s stock portfolio, but Mr. Tillerson will fix all that once he is Secretary of State.
nk (dbc370) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:19 amEvil Empire.
Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:23 amfight them with fracking
but keep your eye on them chinesers
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:32 amAs Kasparov argues, it was Ronald Reagan’s approach, and it worked out pretty damned well.
Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:33 amThat is evidently sarcasm, but if you watched the videos (I doubt it) you will see he has real knowledge and depth on these issues.
The real test will be how he votes on Tillerson. I’m going to counter conventional wisdom, take a run at Lucy’s football, and predict he votes no. Because, I *have* watched these videos.
Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:36 amThe people who will take the time to digest this post will inevitably be the people who don’t need to.
Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:37 am#9 Patterico,
I wasn’t being sarcastic in the slightest.
During the primaries, Marco Rubio supplanted Ted Cruz as my first choice to become the GOP nominee.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:56 amI still wish he had become the nominee.
I often stated how Marco has serious foreign policy chops, and in fact, a few of those hacked emails revealed he’s the one who Team Hillary feared the most.
Numerous times throughout the primaries (and during the general election campaign) I was mockingly referred to as Rubio Supporter by others here, and that was totally fine with me.
I don’t recall Ronald Reagan ever calling a contemporary Soviet leader a war criminal. I certainly don’t recall him doing that as President-elect. I do recall Jimmy Carters human rights crusade particularly as it relates to Iran and Nicaragua.
Mr. Tillerson’s comments were more Reaganesque with regard to how to respond to Russia. With strength and power and “Trust but Verify”. Maybe Marco is planning to take Putin to the ICC or maybe he thinks he can shame him by calling him names. I don’t doubt that Putin is a bad guy and I personally wouldn’t hesitate to call him a war criminal, but I am not the nominee for Sec. of State and for him to make a pronouncement like that before being confirmed and fully briefed and consulting with his principal would be totally irresponsible.
Charles Harkins (be8e70) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:01 amI laughed at the lady juror who called the CEO of the world’s fourth-largest multinational a humble man, but Tillerson may very well be, in the same way Uriah Heep was, an obsequious sycophant, when dealing with tinpots like Putin for the enrichment of his company.
nk (dbc370) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:02 amMoral values are my deepest concern in running our country. But our voice will be sorely compromised until we break off the funding of Planned Parenthood. Then we will be able to hold our heads up with the morality issues overall. The next big moral issue to contend with in the USA, is acknowledging what genuine marriage is. (Hint – it’s not what our shortly to be removed POTUS recently declared). These are deep seated inherent evils which are basic societal euthanasic activities. Putin should not be trusted to be sure, but why should we? Only when we honor the 10 Commandments we can be that Shining City on the hill. Please God this latter path is the one Donald Trump will take.
Kathleen Virnig (291cc0) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:10 amThe problem, which I think is intractable, is for the government to do certain things they can’t be 100% honest and open all of the time. Not that I agree with deceiving the American people, but you can’t necessarily let the world know what is inside the head of the president and the SoS. I thought the same thing years ago when people wanted “transparency” from Condi Rice.
It is like asking someone to play poker when letting everyone else know what is in your hand.
I have no comment on whether this guy would be a good SoS, I haven’t tried to sift through stuff to have an educated opinion.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:33 amIdeally china would also be considered a rogue regime, their laogai archipelago its occupation in zinjiang and tibet, I wouldn’t tale tea with bashir as lurch and pelosi have done, but I’m not sanguine on their replacement either.
Now basayev may have been Russian tool at some point, but khaatab was most certainly an instrument of the kingdom
narciso (d1f714) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:34 amPutin holds the leash on Cuba, and is an enabler of the sepal, my shorthand for the Iranian regime.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:36 amOn a somewhat related note:
I saw a clip of Trump’s presser, IIRC a clip where he was saying his good relations with Russia were an asset and not a liability, where he said we were going to need Russia to help us defeat ISIL, “which is (it’s?) tricky”. So what’s tricky? ISIL is tricky? Getting Russia to help us defeat ISIL is tricky? Defeating ISIL is tricky?
We know it’s not the last – defeating ISIL is simple and easy. Just bomb the sh-t out of them and take their oil, anybody you capture you subject to waterboarding and a lot more, have the military kill their families because the military will do whatever you tell them to do, believe me. Piece of cake.
For that reason, it can’t be the second – we don’t need Russia to help us defeat ISIL because defeating ISIL is simple and easy.
So is it the first? Trump has only now figured out that ISIL is tricky and he didn’t know that before?
Or maybe, just maybe, Trump did actually kinda sorta maybe hint, sotto voce and in a parenthetical aside in his hyperactive-speed-freak-with-ADD-on-an-acid-trip manner of speaking in which he never actually completes a coherent sentence or a complete thought, that defeating ISIL is a little bit tricky and maybe he was just talking out his butt when he said he had a simple plan to defeat them. And nobody, as far as I know, paid any attention to those couple of words.
Jerryskids (3308c1) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:54 amHave you seen the “Winter On Fire” documentary, Patterico? Regarding the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine? It’s powerful stuff, and provides a strong emotional underpinning to the resistance of Russian encroachment and influence peddling.
Leviticus (efada1) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:58 amBear in mind that a Secretary of State shouldn’t, and can not, talk like a private citizen.
I can say Putin is a thug and a war criminal, and I speak only for myself. Same with Sen. Rubio, although when he says it he has a bigger audience and more influence.
But when the Sec. Of State says it, it means that is actual US policy, with consequences.
Kishnevi (a1b7cb) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:01 amWhat Kishnevi said.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:04 amTrump has effectively infiltrated your head. All is not lost. Get a large glass of Knob Creek 100 proof Bourbon and stop listening when he babbles.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:07 amKishinevi is right. And our policy should recognize thugs for what they are and deal with them on that basis.
Kasparov does not say boycott Russia. Just understand who they are and proceed accordingly.
As a matter of policy.
It’s what Reagan did.
Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:07 amEvil Empire.
Patterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:11 amI have no comment on whether this guy would be a good SoS, I haven’t tried to sift through stuff to have an educated opinion.
I think he would be good at whatever he put his mind and hands to. He is a person of exceptional ability and accomplishment. The worry is what policies will he, without doubt very competently, promote.
nk (dbc370) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:27 amAs kish said, it will be Tillerson’s job to implement the Trump Administration’s policy, just as he implemented ExxonMobil’s policies. Tillerson is clearly capable of implementing policies for the benefit of the institution he represents.
The question is “What is President Trump’s policy toward Russia, Putin, and the Russian people?” We don’t know yet but the indicators are that Trump views Putin as a partner and ally. ExxonMobil also partnered with Putin and Russia, so choosing Tillerson to serve as Secretary of State supports this conclusion.
Foreign policy is often a mix of idealism and pragmatism, and this dichotomy has tripped up countless Presidents in our history (including Reagan’s decision to send troops to Beirut). Trump seems to be a pragmatist who, although he may talk the talk about supporting democracy in the world, will not walk the walk. That makes Tillerson a smart choice for Trump, but it signals bad news for freedom-lovers in countries like Russia. I think Bush 43 was more conflicted over how to promote freedom than Trump will be, and Trump’s Jacksonian supporters likely view Trump’s approach more favorably.
DRJ (15874d) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:46 amIf I had seen nk’s comment before posting, I would have said Ditto and saved the bandwidth.
DRJ (15874d) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:49 amI am reading this book right now because you have mentioned it several times, and I have put it ahead of several others on my list of “to reads”. Just got it from the library yesterday after returning Ellison’s “The Invisible Man”. I won’t read your review until I have finished the book myself and have drawn my own conclusions. Then I’ll go back and see what you had to say and how much and in which parts I track with your thoughts and conclusions. I know that Tillerson’s confirmation will not be affected one way or the other.
elissa (27bbc2) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:58 amNatan Sharansky has been saying similar things about Russia’s nomenklatura, and more specifically Putin and the people he represents, for a long time. (He is a famous refusenik and also one of Kasparov’s old sparring partners). If you liked Kasparov’s book you might enjoy The Case for Democracy as well.
And Rubio is right about supporting dissidents, of course. The practical difficulty in formulating adequate responses by Congress and the executive tends to come where (actual) dissidents are treated harshly by US allies, who are generally not as grim as so-called rogue regimes but are still pretty dreadful places in terms of human rights, and especially in instances where the distinctions between “dissident” and “militant” begin to blur.
JP (f1742c) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:08 amThe Soviets went thru so many premiers that it would have tired Reagan out calling them all war criminals.
Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:12 amThank you, DRJ, but when I read your comment I thought to myself “I wish I had said that”.
nk (dbc370) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:15 amSuggested edit
JP (f1742c) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:25 amIt occurs to me that Trump ran as the anti-Bush candidate far more than the anti-Obama candidate. What’s surprising is how many Republicans apparently hated Bush 43.
DRJ (15874d) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:27 amPutin is a pretty bad guy and his government does awful things. So is Xi Jinping, and his government does awful things–and I would argue that his much larger and stronger and belligerent nation is a much closer threat, since Europe is much stronger than Putin but China’s neighbors are not stronger than China. Yet we partner with both governments on North Korea.
For that matter we did not, even under Reagan, reflexively oppose the Soviet Union on every issue. We worked with them when we had to, on matters of importance to both nations, to the extent we could trust them to be guided by enlightened self-interest.
The sad fact of a fallen world, is that once a nation gets above a certain size, your options with respect to them constrict. Unless you want to go to war.
This is why we let the Soviet Union blame their war atrocities on the Germans and why we let them enslave Eastern Europe.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:28 amNo wonder they also hated Cruz. I don’t think Cruz would have governed like Bush 43 but the similarities were probably too much to ignore.
DRJ (15874d) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:29 am@DRJ: What’s surprising is how many Republicans apparently hated Bush 43.
Hate is a pretty strong word. It’s that in hindsight a lot of Republicans think he made large, expensive mistakes, for the country and his party and for conservatism. I am not one who thinks so, but I can state their case fairly without accusing them of hate.
I agree with your assessment that Trump was running in part against Bush.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:31 am==No wonder they also hated Cruz. I don’t think Cruz would have governed like Bush 43 but the similarities were probably too much to ignore.==
Other than the fact that both Bush and Cruz ran from Texas and often wore cowboy boots and had wives who were probably to the left of them, I am having trouble seeing “similarities” at all.
elissa (27bbc2) — 1/12/2017 @ 9:51 amRe: 24 above
I don’t believe that you don’t know the difference between calling the Soviet Union an evil empire and calling a named leader of a country a war criminal. I also agree with what Kishnevi and MD from Philly said.
Tillerson did not say that Putin was not a bad person or that he was not a war criminal. He just refused to be baited into setting U.S. positions on the fly by pandering to Rubio.
I was, by the way a Rubio supporter until the bitter end. That included financial contributions. I still think he has a good knowledge of these issues, but he is wrong to pressure the nominee to make policy on the fly. Tillerson’s response that he would not consider making such an allegation based only on public reports without being briefed is not only reasonable, it is the only sensible answer.
Charles Harkins (be8e70) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:01 amSo guess who has also worked with fusion GPS in the past, denys gatsyn a Russian money laundered.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:20 amRubio’s performance was disgraceful. The questions seeking to publicly impugn leaders and other states are fine behind closed doors to ensure everyone is reading from the same sheet of music, but counter-productive in a public hearing because it puts the witness in a no-win situation. This is not a courtroom and hearings are not cross -examination. There was no good answer Tillerson could give as either answer he could offer would have a diplomatic downside. That Tillerson will now have to clean up unnecesarily because Rubio is still butt hurt over the fact he feels like he lost the primary to his intellectual inferior.
Rubio wasn’t my first choice last year – probably 3rd – but now I would have a hard time supporting him because of this little grandstand play.
Shipwreckedcrew (d10d9f) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:26 amHe’s a politician. He’s ambitious but not stupid. In the end I predict Rubio will vote for Tillerson’s confirmation. It’s the final result, not the moment in the sun grandstand that ultimately counts in politics.
elissa (27bbc2) — 1/12/2017 @ 10:34 amI think Cruz and Bush both present themselves and are viewed by most Americans as Christian family men and law-and-order conservatives on the right side of the political spectrum nationally, but mainstream for Texans. They both cultivate a sometimes abrasive, sometimes mock humble, larger-than-life Texas persona (as do most Texas politicians). Don’t most Americans tend to see Texas politicians from that perspective?
DRJ (d18ca6) — 1/12/2017 @ 11:32 amNYT book review from November, 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/books/…/winter-is-coming-by-garry-kasparov.html
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/12/2017 @ 11:54 amThank you for writing this interesting book review, Patterico.
DRJ (d18ca6) — 1/12/2017 @ 11:59 am5. nk (dbc370) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:19 am
I think Vladimir Putin blamed Hillary Clinton for that, because the person caught on Russian bugs planning how to help the Ukrainians was Victoria Nuland, who had earlier worked for Hillary Clinton at the State Department, and was still there, and he thought she was one of Hillary’s women and was following instructions from Hillary. I don’t think she was. I don’t think Hillary cared.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 1/12/2017 @ 12:02 pmPerhaps you can, DRJ, but I don’t know and can’t speculate broadly with respect to what “most Americans tend to see” about Texas politicians. I was only asking you for more detail about what “similarities” you saw between Bush and Cruz that you believed might result in the Republican “hate” for them that you brought up in your earlier post. You’ve offered some observations about their personalities, but I am not convinced that being Christian, law and order conservative family men are generally a cause for Republican “hate”.
elissa (27bbc2) — 1/12/2017 @ 12:12 pmAs I said above, Texans politicians are often abrasive and sometimes seem to lack humility. Many are disliked because they come across as arrogant, boastful and uncaring compared to politicians from other states.
I think there is a special dislike bordering on hatred among a segment of Republicans directed at both Cruz (for his arrogance, government shutdown, and refusal to endorse Trump) and Bush (for Iraq, the economy, and the loss of good will that led to Obama). In short, I think they share personalities that cause people to believe they are too rigid or inflexible.
But clearly you disagree. Sorry I mentioned it.
DRJ (d18ca6) — 1/12/2017 @ 12:41 pmJerryskids (3308c1) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:54 am
Well, this is what Donald Trump said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trump-press-conference-transcript.html?_r=0
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 1/12/2017 @ 12:44 pm10.
That is mostly true, but we can still learn things, and it’s useful to have acouple of things put together.
I knew that Russian forces were accused of killing the people held hostage in Beslan – I thought it was by gunfire. He killed maybe four or five times as many children as Bill Clinton did eleven and a half years earlier, and that was not suicide, and not an accident either. That was done to save J. William Buford head of the BATF in Little Rock. Bill Clinton also didn’t poison any journalists, but he did keep the FBI Director away from the scene at Waco. Journalists were kept away from contacting the people in the compound or those who came out without using any kind of poison.
narciso @39 Who is this denys gatsyn and how is his name spelled?
By the way, I think the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was deliberately planned and not any kind of mistake. It was an attempt by Putin to show how dangerous the war was, so it should be settled on his terms.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 1/12/2017 @ 12:57 pm==But clearly you disagree. Sorry I mentioned it.==
No “clearly” I neither agree nor disagree. I simply didn’t understand what you were talking about and asked you a question to clarify rather than just accept assumptions or broad generalities or ignore your comment.
elissa (27bbc2) — 1/12/2017 @ 1:01 pm3. Charles Harkins (be8e70) — 1/12/2017 @ 5:49 am
No it wasn’t. Jimmy Carter talked human rights, but he didn’t do it. Jimmy Carter took up the cause of human right in June, 1976 because he saw how popular it made Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was running for the Senate.
If Jimmy Carter had cared the least bit about human rights he wouldn’t have intervened in 1977 to prevent Thailand from invading Cambodia and overthrowing Pol Pot. That had to wait for Communist Vietnam, and then he took a diplomatic position against it, which was followed later by Reagan.
The human rights interventions of Jimmy Carter were all for show, and to impress people who had no idea what was really going on.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 1/12/2017 @ 1:03 pmYour use of multiple unnecessary scare quotes suggest you have doubts, elissa.
DRJ (d18ca6) — 1/12/2017 @ 1:21 pm=No it wasn’t. Jimmy Carter talked human rights, but he didn’t do it.=
Exactly! What would calling Putin a war criminal by the Sec. of State designate be – other than talk?
Charles Harkins (be8e70) — 1/12/2017 @ 1:27 pm@DRJ: elissa is quoting your word. That’s a quote quote, not a scare quote.
Maybe you could stay away from introducing personalities into this. That is your signature move in discussions.
Gabriel Hanna (26d43f) — 1/12/2017 @ 1:35 pmGatvys money launderer, also employee against vandersloot (fusion was)
narciso (d1f714) — 1/12/2017 @ 1:46 pmPatterico (c32ea2) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:36 am
I don’t think he;ll vote no. That’s a very serious step. I think he’ll get some statement out of Tillerson. He won’t announce how he’ll vote till the last day or two. He’ll let eople know everything will be factored in. It could go the other way, if something seems very wrong with Tillerson’s attitude.
Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e) — 1/12/2017 @ 2:58 pmRecent conflicts should remind Americans that ex-pats makes for great cheerleaders urging others to do what they won’t- or can’t- do themselves.
Putin is a Russian creation and a problem for the Russian people to manage. And of late his nationalism bolsters his popularity with the Russian people. But it’s not for America, or Europe, or the rest of the world to solve. Russians are a proud people with a long history and equally long memories. They haven’t forgotten America ‘invaded’ their country a hundred years ago. Or the 20 million they lost in WW2.
This is not to excuse Putin for his murderous brutality and meddling anymore than the blood on Stalin’s hands, who was an American ally against the Axis, as a matter of pragmatics.
But pragmatists work a problem; ideologues often exacerbate them. There’s nothing to be gained by calling Putin a murderous scumbag over and over. Tillerson knows this. Rubio does not. T-Rex is a pragmatist. Little Marco is an ideologue.
When a ship of state sinks, there’s usually flotsam left in the wake for a long time. Putin is just that; a piece of wreckage from the last century. The Russia of today is not a superpower. It is not the Soviet Union of yesteryear as much as Vladimir wishes it was. There is little it has that the world wants beyond natural resources. It is a regional power baiting aging Cold Warriors and rigid ideologues in the West for attention. Desperate for cash flow to sustain itself, Russia sells energy resources to Europe. And to America, such esoteric services as HSF operations and welcomes business investments Russian consumers crave– like McDonald’s in Red Square and so forth. Porsche and Rolls Royce dealerships are established there as well… unheard of just 35 years ago.
Pragmatists are in. Ideologues are out. And Putin is a problem to be worked– until he sinks into history like his beloved USSR.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/12/2017 @ 2:59 pmDRJ (15874d) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:46 am
I don’t think he talks the talk, and it’s not just Russia. It’s also Syria, for instance. And Trump has not said anything about the Phillipines. That’s what seems to be bothering Marco Rubio.
I don’t think Bush II was too conflicted about how. He was maybe somewhat conflicted about whether, and in some other cases, like North Korea, resigned himself to doing nothing. He just despised Kim Jong Il.
Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e) — 1/12/2017 @ 3:14 pmHi Gabriel. That’s a fair point about elissa’s quotes so I apologize for calling them scare quotes. It’s certainly possible that she wasn’t trying to distance herself from my words but was sincerely concerned that I might forget I used them.
However, I don’t agree that my signature move (“signature move”) is introducing personalities and emotion into discussions. I like to talk online and talking to you and elissa is interesting, but the feeling doesn’t seem to be reciprocated. No problem and best wishes.
DRJ (15874d) — 1/12/2017 @ 3:43 pm@DRJ:the feeling doesn’t seem to be reciprocated.
Perfect example. Instead of stopping where you did, you went on to speculate about emotional states.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/12/2017 @ 3:52 pm@DRJ: When you say people seem upset, or ask why they are so hostile, or that they’re not reciprocating your feelings, you have derailed the discussion into emotions and personalities. Because you can’t see anyone’s emotional cues here. It’s just text. If someone doesn’t say what they are feeling you have nothing whatever to base these speculations on.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/12/2017 @ 3:54 pm@DRJ:was sincerely concerned that I might forget I used them.
Back to the topic, you can ask her, but it was clear she set your words in quotes to emphasize that she was using your word to describe the situation and not her own. That is not scare quotes, as you have acknowledged.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/12/2017 @ 3:56 pmAnd the response of the outgoing President to increasingly deadly Russian spoiling has more or less amounted to “hey don’t you know that’s NOT COOL anymore, bro?”
Putin didn’t get the memo about the End of History.
JP (256276) — 1/12/2017 @ 3:58 pmGabriel Hanna’s signature move is inserting himself into conversations that don’t involve them, and forcing people to pay attention to him.
My signature move is being annoyed by Gabriel Hanna, inserting myself into conversations that don’t involve me once he’s inserted himself into conversations that don’t involve him, and forcing him to pay attention to me.
I’m unfortunately reduced to being a metaHanna, albeit in a hopefully mercifully limited set of circumstances.
Leviticus (efada1) — 1/12/2017 @ 4:24 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/443792/russia-donald-trump-intelligence-report-christopher-steele-russian-propaganda-disrupt (link from MD in Philly)
Satter: My entry in Wikipedia was recently changed to say that I was expelled from Russia in 2013 for running a brothel with underage girls.
There is a lot of pedophilia allegations going on with the FSB. We all know about Pizzagate, which is probably Russian, but there’s more.
They even planted child pornography on the computer of former Soviet dissident (and more recently friend of Litvinenko) Vladimir Bukovsky, who was freed at the same time as Natan (Anatoly) Sharansky in 1986.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/world/europe/vladimir-putin-russia-fake-news-hacking-cybersecurity.html
Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:25 pmDidn’t hear one thing that even came close to disqualifying Tillerson. IMO he’s a refreshing dose of pragmatism and professionalism after eight years of State Dept. incompetence.
No idea what Rubio’s motives are but creating an “I told you so” card for possible future use does not seem out of the question, especially considering some of his slimy moves on illegal immigration.
Harkin (a9a478) — 1/12/2017 @ 6:47 pmSettle down Beavis
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:29 pmI have not, but based on your recommendation I will make a point of watching it.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/12/2017 @ 8:33 pmI’m waiting for the book, too. But your review gave me a little deja vu. I think I’ve already read this one: https://www.amazon.com/Consolidation-Dictatorship-Russia-Democracy-International/dp/0313345945
nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:18 amWhat’s ironic about the earlier book is that the authors blame Yeltsin for not giving new Russia democracy. An implicit admission that Russians need a strong man to tell them how to govern themselves. And I suspect the irony was lost on them.
Even a casual look at Russian history shows that it has absolutely no tradition of democracy and political freedom. The closest it has come to it is periods of anarchy kept in check by bloody-handed boyars. It has always been ruled by a “Czar” of some kind, and the Communist era is exceptional in having two rulers in a row die in their beds since the time of Peter the Great. Most were assassinated.
I am particularly curious to see what Kasparov’s plan to establish sustainable democratic institutions is.
nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:53 amThat has been the pattern, Yeltsin was a mercurial muzhik who allowed some liberty like Alexander 2nd
narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 6:58 amAs to tillerson obama’s diktak affected his bottom line, re artic oil exploration, so he had to strike a deal somewhere else, he suspended the seismic permits for Atlantic exploration
narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:02 amI think Obama gave Exxon-Mobil a waiver for one project in process because Putin threatened to seize the facilities and equipment if Exxon-Mobil stopped work pursuant to the sanctions?
nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:12 amThat may be so, but that’s not enough, shell spent 3 billion and was withdrew from alaska
narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:21 amWeak tradition, sure. Absolutely no tradition of democracy (or at least, representative governance) and political freedom? Tougher sell.
Official Soviet historiography generally took a dim view of Russian thinkers and political theorists who weren’t the correct sort of socialist.
Consequently Russian liberals, constitutional monarchists, parliamentary representation and instances of non-socialist peasant self-governance got short shrift in a lot of post-Tsarist Russian literature.
JP (f1742c) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:18 amIt’s like that movie Inception.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:36 amThere have been three brief political opening in the 18th century before the French revolution, in the 19th century under Alexander the 2nd and the Gorbachev Yeltsin one.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/13/2017 @ 8:46 amA certain commenter here might quibble about the meaning of “tradition” but I won’t be like him. 😉
Of course Russians are human beings and human beings have a desire for freedom and self-determination. In Russia, the suppression of these desires has resulted in existentialist angst which in turn resulted in great writing and music of which I am very appreciative, especially the writing.
nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:18 am@70 I am particularly curious to see what Kasparov’s plan to establish sustainable democratic institutions is.
His ‘plan’ is to sell books, play chess in the safety of the West and rally others to risk it all and do what he won’t do in Russia but Walesa did in Poland. Ex-pats are great cheerleaders, as the recent conflicts in the Gulf should remind you.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:31 am@77. Well said. Without Gorby, Reagan would have been dancing stag through the 80s. Confronted in Red Square about his Evil Empire quip, Gorbachev at his side, Reagan nulled it before cameras but in the long run, his ‘trash heap of history’ view was right. The Soviet Union is gone. The Russia of today is tied to western economies more than ever. Putin is a hiccup… or heartburn… one of the last, dying tendrils to the bureaucracy that was the USSR. For he and his cronies, the greatest enemy is time. And as with hiccups and heartburn, this too shall pass.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/13/2017 @ 11:44 amWait a minute – are we against anti-communist cheerleaders, now?
On a less happy note, Walesa had to deal with imprisonment, martial law, and Jaruzelski. He had a rough row to hoe but he didn’t face the firing squad. Kasparov has to think about polonium, disappearances, and Putin.
JP (f1742c) — 1/13/2017 @ 12:52 pmAn Englishman, a Frenchman, and a Russian were once discussing the meaning of true happiness.
The Englishman said, “True happiness, my friends, is rising early on a frosty autumn morning, getting on top of a good horse, and galloping off behind the hounds in pursuit of the fox. A hard ride over fields and fences and rivulets until the fox is brought down. A ride back with the ears and the tail and then sitting before a roaring fire with a glass of good port. Ah, that is true happiness.”
The Frenchman said, “That is not true happiness. That is merely animal pleasure. True happiness is meeting with the love of your life, having an intimate meal in a topnotch restaurant with champagne, and then retiring to a wonderful hotel room, where you can make frantic and impassioned love all night long. Ah, that is true happiness.”
The Russian said, “That is not true happiness. That is merely a good time. True happiness comes when you are sitting in your apartment after a hard day at the factory, your little Ivan on your knee, and reading your copy of ‘Pravda’. There comes a knock at the door. Three men in ill-fitting brown suits come storming in and say, ‘Stepan Stepanovich?’ and you say, ‘He lives in the room upstairs.’ Ah, that is true happiness.”
nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 7:29 pmKGB agents did work in teams of three. One who could read, one who could write, and one to keep an eye on the two intellectuals.
nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2017 @ 9:07 pmnk bringing the chuckles. One of my favourite Russian jokes…
An old Jewish man is riding on the Trans-Siberian railway on his way to Vladivostok, carrying a huge and heavy suitcase. He enters the first carriage, walks down the center aisle, and taps a fellow passenger on the shoulder.
“Excuse me, comrade — are you an anti-Semite?”
“No, of course not!” replies the passenger. “I am actually quite fond of Jews!”
The old man thanks him, proceeds down the aisle, and taps the next man on the shoulder.
“Excuse me, comrade — are you an anti-Semite?”
“Absolutely not! Some of my best friends are Jews!”
The old Jew thanks him and continues on his quest. All through that carriage, and the next one, and the one after that, he receives similar responses. Finally, at the end of the train, he reaches the last passenger.
“Excuse me, comrade — are you an anti-Semite?”
“I most certainly am!” the fellow replies. “Filthy kikes! I hate those f***ers!”
“At last, an honest man!” exclaims the old Jew. “Would you mind watching my suitcase while I go to the toilet?”
JP (256276) — 1/14/2017 @ 8:20 amThis article, from the Janaury/February 2017 issue of the Atlantic is very relevant to this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/the-poison-flower/508736/
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/25/2017 @ 11:20 am