This week the actor and former Nixon advisor Ben Stein appeared on the Fox News Channel to discuss Europe's reliance on Russian energy.
Judge for yourselves, but I think Stein's use of the terms "evil" and "barbaric" play right into the hands of Russia's apologists, who promote the Russia-as-victim metanarrative, and uphold the image of Russia being subject to irrational fear and undeserved suspicion from the West. To put the energy imperialism discussion in these black and white moral terms, Stein is doing for Russia what George W. Bush did for international relations following the Axis of Evil speech - all populism and no progress.
I am critical of Russia's energy policies because 1) they break international rules and norms, 2) they violate property rights and are in flagrant breach of contracts, and 3) they are overtly used a political lever, especially toward the former satellite states. These issues are more than enough to motivate a response - it is not necessary to pass moral judgments.
In my view, the entire discussion on Russia going off the rails - it has become way too emotive, way too pejorative, and there is no doubt that it is absolutely helping the radical forces within the Kremlin gain more and more influence.
| Permalink
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
Comments (1)
Bob, I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. You yourself have documented the EU's limp-wristed response to Russia, virtually no action is being taken by anyone to confront Russia on any one of a dozen different policy areas where it has clearly gone berzerk. If anything, I think more Ben Stein lingo is needed, not less. I think it's bascially human nature that unless a crisis is perceived, no action will be taken, especially when people perceive that their heating oil and gas may be put at risk by taking any action at all.
Moreover, we're clearly being bullied right now by a bunch of thugs in the Kremlin, and I think it's necessary to push back hard lest they get the idea that we are pushovers.
After all, we tried it your way during the Yeltsin years, and the result of our non-confrontational attitude was Putin and KGB control. Had we been more aggressively confrontational during the Yeltsin period, and particularly during the runup to Putin's election, when Russia had no oil fumes to get high on, we might well not see the KGB in charge today and M.K. might well not even be in prison. In fact, had we been more aggressive after the Bolshevik revolution, we might well never have seen a gulag archipelago.
What evidence do you have that a non-confrontational approach would be effective? What "progress" have the anti-Steins achieved? Isn't it obvious that the world doesn't yet perceive Russia to be an emergency situation, so that louder alarms need to be sounded?
Posted by La Russophobe | December 21, 2006 9:03 PM
Posted on December 21, 2006 21:03