Murdoch fetes Ingraham -- Newsrooms grapple with harassment claims -- Halperin accused -- Brookings suspends Wieseltier -- Glor lands 'CBS Evening News' desk
IN A ROOM FULL OF REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS AND FOX NEWS STARS, Rupert Murdoch remains the center of gravity. The 86-year-old, 21st Century Fox executive chairman chatted with Rand Paul as Lindsay Graham stopped by to say hello. Ted Cruz next came by, along with Fox News personalities paying their respects to the boss. -- Murdoch was hosting a party Wednesday night at Charlie Palmer Steak for Laura Ingraham, who takes over the 10 p.m. hour later this month. He celebrated Fox News’ position atop the cable news rating for the past 16 years and the “loyalty” of the network’s viewers. “We’ve lost big name talent to other networks and the audience has not followed,” Murdoch told the crowd. -- He did not mention former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who was back in the news this past week following the revelation he settled with a woman accuser in January for $32 million -- a month before landing a new Fox News contract. (Though son James did address earlier in the day). Murdoch also didn’t mention Megyn Kelly, who has been ripping her former network on NBC for its handling of sexual harassment allegations. Murdoch pointed out that Fox News now had “more female talent on the air than any other network.” He specifically mentioned Ainsley Earhardt appearing early morning on “Fox & Friends” -- “we know who her biggest fan is,” he joked -- and Shannon Bream helming a new 11 p.m. show. -- Next, Ingraham discussed her plans for her new show. “We’re going to go through the issues that are cutting through the heart of America right now,” she said. “Tom Wolfe said the parenthesis are the coasts and America’s in the middle. We forget sometimes about the middle of the country. They’re not ordinary Americans. That’s America. We intend to not talk down to them, but have a conversation every night.”-- Also in attendance: Ivanka Trump, Jerry Hall, Jack Abernethy, Suzanne Scott, Jay Wallace, Bill Sammon, Orrin Hatch, Dennis Kucinich, Richard Burr, Debbie Dingell, Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, Bret Baier, Bream, Chris Wallace, Ed Henry, Jennifer Griffin, Catherine Herridge, Chris Stirewalt, and Katie Pavlich.Good morning and welcome to Morning Media. It's a remarkable moment in this business post-Weinstein, as most of the news in today's newsletter is tied to sexual harassment allegations against powerful men. And there are surely more revelations to come. [email protected] and @mlcalderone. Daniel Lippman contributed to the newsletter. Archives. Subscribe.NEWSROOMS GRAPPLE WITH 'SHITTY MEDIA MEN': Jason Schwartz and I looked at how news organizations are responding to anonymous sexual harassment allegations against men in media, including in their own shops. "Journalists have been sharing screenshots of the list for nearly two weeks, but news organizations have remained understandably skittish about amplifying the claims without substantiation. It’s rare that news organizations can still act as a gatekeeper for information given the ability for emerging media players, perhaps less bound to traditional newsroom standards, to publish at will."-- Mike Cernovich, a right-wing blogger and social media personality who obtained a copy of the list and threatened to publish it in full, has also held back. He told us that he was reaching out to men on the list and consulting with his lawyer. “I’m not endorsing any of the accusations contained on the list,” he added. “Rather, I am reporting that others have made those accusations. It’s a tightrope to walk. That’s probably why the full list hasn’t been posted online by anyone, even me.”MARK HALPERIN ACCUSED OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT: CNN's Oliver Darcy reports on the latest high-profile journalist to face allegations: "Women who spoke to CNN say [Halperin] also had a dark side not made public until now. The stories of harassment shared with CNN range in nature from propositioning employees for sex to kissing and grabbing one's breasts against her will. Three of the women who spoke to CNN described Halperin as, without consent, pressing an erection against their bodies while he was clothed. Halperin denies grabbing a woman's breasts and pressing his genitals against the three women."-- "During this period, I did pursue relationships with women that I worked with, including some junior to me," Halperin told CNN. "I now understand from these accounts that my behavior was inappropriate and caused others pain. For that, I am deeply sorry and I apologize. Under the circumstances, I'm going to take a step back from my day-to-day work while I properly deal with this situation."BROOKINGS SUSPENDS LEON WIESELTIER: The Brookings Institution, where Wieseltier was a senior fellow, has severed ties with the former New Republic literary editor after admitting to past “misdeeds” involving female colleagues and losing his new magazine, Idea. President Strobe Talbott told The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple that Wieseltier was suspended without pay from Brookings “while we gather information.”EX-NEW REPUBLIC STAFFERS REACT: HuffPost's Jason Cherkis spoke to those who worked alongside Wieseltier about the revelations. “I accept I was blind and complicit and just, like, did nothing,” one former top New Republic editor, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly, told HuffPost. “There was a bully, and I was not standing up to the bully to protect people.”BILL O’REILLY COULD STILL END UP AT SINCLAIR: The New York Times’ bombshell on O'Reilly apparently isn't enough to for right-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group. "They took a pause but it didn't really change anything for them," a source told NBC’s Claire Atkinson. -- The NBC report comes a day after a Sinclair rep told CNN the company “is not in discussions” with O’Reilly. MUST READ: CNN's Brianna Keilar writes, "With my husband deployed, covering the news hits home'JEFF GLOR TO ANCHOR ‘CBS EVENING NEWS’: Glor, who joined the network in 2007 and has most recently been an anchor on streaming service CBSN, will assume the anchor desk later this year. "Jeff is a thoughtful, probing journalist with the versatility to anchor in any circumstance – from daily reporting to the most significant events of our time," CBS News president David Rhodes said in a statement. "In his more than 10 years at CBS News, Jeff has earned the trust of viewers and his colleagues. He represents the best journalistic values and traditions that will carry the Evening News into a digital future.""WHO IS YASHAR?" BuzzFeed's Steve Perlberg profiles Yashar Ali, who shifted from politics to journalism and keeps racking up scoops while amassing a huge Twitter following. "People close to the 37-year-old describe him as a driven, wealthy Renaissance man who gets obsessed with various topics and finds a way to succeed at them — and they aren’t surprised that his new interest happens to be journalism," Perlberg wrote. "Other Democratic officials are dumbfounded by Yashar’s career change, and they wonder how someone could develop sources in the entertainment, media, and intelligence communities seemingly overnight (though Yashar’s reporting largely hasn’t been disputed)."-- "In recent months, Yashar’s time in media has caught the eye of editors who have tried to court the reporter for a full-time job," Perlberg wrote. "He is in early talks with one major network, according to a person familiar with the matter. He has also been approached by BuzzFeed News."COMING UP: Anita Hill will sit down with Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait to discuss sexual harassment and workplace culture at Bloomberg’s “The Year Ahead” summit on Nov. 8. Other speakers include NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, NBC News host Nicolle Wallace, and Jennifer Palmieri, the president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund and former Hillary Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri.REVOLVING DOOR:Alexandra Steigrad isleaving WWD to cover media for the New York Post.EXTRAS:-- FCC loosening media ownership rules. -- Fox continues to be the president's safe space.-- Trump asks Lou Dobbs: "‘What Could Be More Fake Than CBS and NBC and ABC and CNN?"
John Sullivan, a lawyer with no prior diplomatic experience, will oversee a steering team on restructuring the diplomatic corps just as career officers are growing increasingly frustrated with changes under Trump.
Subscribe to The Global POLITICO on iTunes here. | Subscribe via Stitcher.Glasser: Well, I’m Susan Glasser, and welcome back to The Global POLITICO. Our guest again this week is Strobe Talbott, the president of Brookings, a Russianist of the first order, a Russophile, an author, former deputy secretary of state, and really as close of a thing as I can say I know to a Washington version of a Renaissance man.Strobe, I was just saying to you, it’s almost selfish of me to have you as this week’s guest on The Global POLITICO, but I feel like if there was ever a moment where I would want to consult you about this Russia obsession that has overtaken our national politics, it would be now. So yes, of course, we’ve got to start with Russia, Russia, Russia. You know, there’s two aspects to that; there’s this sort of unfolding Russiagate story, which is about American politics in some ways, and then there’s also what’s going on with our man in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin, and inside Russia itself. But, let’s start with that. What do you think? I mean, are we headed into Watergate territory here? Talbott: The Watergate analogy, we should probably put aside for a number of reasons. The miscreance of President Nixon was largely while he was a sitting president. The known knowns and the unknown knowns, and the known unknowns are largely back at the time of the campaign, and to some degree, in the transition but before President Trump was actually in the White House. And there are a lot of other differences, too. Glasser: So, as someone who’s been inside government, who’s understood what it is to work with classified material, who has seen the long arc of our entire post-Cold War relationship with Russia, and how we do and don’t deal with them: A couple of the revelations in recent weeks have struck me as something really different, and I’m wondering if that’s your view, as well? Like, this report about Jared Kushner, wanting to use secure communications, potentially inside the Russian embassy, to avoid our own government. Is that something that fits in with any of your understanding of a legitimate conversation to have with the Russians? Talbott: I’ve not only never heard or learned about such activity, I couldn’t even imagine it happening, including, by the way, back in a time when there was a sound basis for the United States and the Russian Federation, which is to say post-Soviet Russia, when we were on fairly good terms. I’m talking about the ‘90s, when I was in the State Department, and when Yeltsin was in the Kremlin, and his best pal in the world was Bill Clinton.And he—Yeltsin was building on the partnership that Mikhail Gorbachev wanted to have with the West, which was the basis of the end of the Cold War. And that seems like another galaxy far, far away and a long time ago. Glasser: Right, you forget we were really, in some ways, on better terms with the Soviet Union in its later days than we have been with Russia today in the last few years. Talbott: Yes, well, and I think we should come back to that at some point. Glasser: Yes. Talbott: Because in some ways, or maybe let’s just put it in as a parenthesis here, the Cold War was really scary. Certainly, everybody of my age remembers duck and cover drills in elementary school, and I can remember in prep school, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, being called into the school chapel, and getting down on our knees and praying to God that we weren’t going to see Armageddon in the course of those 13 days. But during those—what Kennedy called the long twilight struggle, there was a compact between the two superpowers that was basically—had two important and connected features to it. One was M.A.D.—mutual assured destruction. However fierce and sometimes in other parts of the world bloody the Cold War was, it never came to a hot war between the two superpowers. That’s because they had an understanding on what the stakes would be. And second, there was a decades-long negotiations over our military and particularly our nuclear arsenals. And that is pretty much eroded, and there’s not much sign that we’re going to get on track. So, in some ways, this post-post-Cold War is more dangerous than the Cold War. Glasser: Well, and you know, so that I think does take us right back to the present day, and a feeling, you know, you’ve never heard so many people sort of beating their chest and bemoaning the breakup of the liberal international order, right. And this week we had President Trump withdrawing from the Paris agreement; we had last week, before that, his visit to Europe and a sense that, you know, he really was not committed to the core principles of the NATO alliance in a way that all of his predecessors have been. Do you hold to the view that Trump is about breaking up this post-post-Cold War order? Talbott: Whether he is thinking in terms of destroying it because he thinks that will create sort of a creative destruction, that he can build a new international order, no, I don’t think that’s—I don’t think that’s what’s really driving it. I think it’s his view of himself as a dealmaker, somebody who is very transactional, who can make up his own rules as they go along. And by the way, I don’t want to lose an attempt at an answer to your question about Jared Kushner’s apparent effort to have a secret channel with the Russians, so that our own government and intelligence services wouldn’t know about it. That would be impossible to imagine, even back in those days when we were on pretty good terms, or the United States government as a whole was on pretty good terms with the Russian government. Glasser: So, you know, you obviously have talked with a lot of people. I don’t think you probably have talked with Trump himself, but you know a lot of people who have engaged with the president, with his White House, tried to understand what is going on with this apparent Trump/Putin bromance. What have you concluded about the president? What do your sources tell you that we’re getting or not getting about why he’s refused to disavow Putin, and why he seems interested in pursuing this Russia reset? Talbott: Well, anything I say in answer to that, Susan, is not going to be new. And certainly not going to be authoritative, because as you say, I don’t have much of a sense. In fact, the more I see of this president, the more puzzled I am. But I guess there are two points that are important here. First of all, having reached the pinnacle of political power, and geopolitical power, at a late age, and I’m virtually his contemporary so I say that knowing what it means, he is convinced, I think, that there is a deal to be done.And it is particularly appealing to him that he will have a counterpart, namely Vladimir Putin, who is strong, and who is not tied down by democracy, by laws, who—somebody who represents pure power, and I think our president has a high regard for people of that kind. In his first trip as president, he sure got along well with a monarchy in the Middle East, an authoritarian president of Egypt, and he did not get along well with our fellow democracies in western Europe.So, I think that’s part of it. I read a piece in the—I think it was in New York Magazine a while back that caught my eye, not least because a book I wrote in the last century, he apparently had claimed to have read. It was a book about Soviet-American arms control agreements, and you know, there is this kind of meme—I don’t know whether it’s true or not that he doesn’t read books, but anyway, he apparently, at some point, had a fascination with—Glasser: With arms control, that’s right. Talbott: With doing deals with Russia over arms control. Glasser: Right, there’s a report that he raised his hand in the 1980s, and said, “Make me your arms control negotiator,” with the Soviets, right? Talbott: Yes. He never got far enough to be in the index of any of my arms control books, but it’s—you know, I think that’s part of it. Let’s do a deal. Glasser: Well, that’s very interesting insight, and I agree that that seems to motivate a lot of his foreign policy, not just with Russia, right. If you look at his interests on Israel and the Palestinians, that seems to be a motivating factor. “Wow, that would be the ultimate deal, and I would show that I’m a great president, because the other presidents were not able to deliver on Middle East peace.” He seems—it’s almost tactical, right, like, okay, where is the deal to be gotten? Or where is the deal bad? Talbott: Yes, and I don’t know to what degree he knows that there is a historical legacy and diplomacy about leveraging issues in one area where you’re trying to improve relations with another country, to another area. But he did that or at least he is trying to do that with regard to China. He’s basically saying or has said—I don’t know what his position is now—that we, the United States will cut you some slack on trade policy if you will lean harder on North Korea. That’s what Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon called linkage. Glasser: Well, it’s interesting. A lot of people suggest that Trumpism actually is sort of a crude form of Kissinger realpolitik. Do you buy that view? Talbott: Well, you and I have spent decades studying Henry Kissinger, and his extraordinarily cerebral but at the same time, very practical and pragmatic, and history-driven, to, I would say, not compare at least in a favorable way Mr. Trump’s notion of realism and Henry Kissinger’s. The fact that Henry Kissinger—whatever you think about him—can walk you back decades and in some cases, centuries, to explain the context of current diplomacy, I wouldn’t expect that Mr. Trump would be able to do that. He—it’s—he has this overweening confidence in his own gut. I remember, I think it was, I can’t remember if it was in the campaign or in the transition, when somebody said, “Who is—who do you most take your advice from?” And he said, “Myself. My gut.” Glasser: Well, let’s take that Kissingerian lesson and talk about history for a second, because I do think that whether Trump engages with it or not, we don’t live in an ahistorical world; we have a history both with Russia and with the American engagement with Russia, and you’ve been thinking about that ever since you were in prep school, you mentioned. That’s when you started studying Russian, and you know, I think you have this incredible arc people might not even know about: your amazing early career as translating Khrushchev’s memoirs, and of course, you know, you met Bill Clinton when you were a Rhodes scholar, and were already deeply engaged in the problems of the Soviet Union, and how the United States should think about the Soviet Union. So, it must be really something every day for you to wake up and realize, once again, Russia is at the center of an American political not only conversation, but a real debate that’s happening in this country. Did we get Russia wrong? Was there anything we could have done to have things work out better in this post-Cold War era? Did we misread Putin? Well, you have things to say, I think, about all of those. Tell us about that first encounter with Vladimir Putin, and how we understood him when he came to power? You were in the State Department then, and you were a very close adviser to President Clinton, as he fought through this problem of the KGB man in the Kremlin. Talbott: Well, I had a couple of encounters, meetings with Vladimir Putin as he ascended—meteorically, from somebody that very few people knew about as a deputy mayor in St. Petersburg, to the presidency of Russia. And what I found in each of the intervening steps that he took when he was—I met with him when he was the national security advisor, and also when he was back in the intelligence—his alma mater, if we can put it that way. Glasser: Or do you ever really graduate? That’s a good question. Talbott: And then prime minister, and then an acting president, and then finally, the president. He is, I would say, extraordinarily different personality from our president. I don’t think he ever just goes with his gut. My impression and I don’t know if it was my first or second or third—it was during the Kosovo war, the very end of the Kosovo war, when we had a crisis when it looked as though Russia, which had been so helpful in getting Milosevic to throw in the towel on the Kosovo war. Then all of a sudden, we had a—basically a mutiny in the Russian military that could have brought the Russians to blows with NATO. That would have been bad. And I did see Putin on that occasion, and rather than starting on the issue at hand, he made a point of noting that he knew the two dissertations that I had written about Russian poets. This was not exactly germane to the issue at hand. Glasser: To say the least. Talbott: It was basically a trained intelligence officer debriefing a source, or testing a source. And he was, to put it mildly, very well prepared. And very, very cautious on any commitment that he was prepared to give to us as we tried to settle this crisis. Glasser: You wrote—actually I was looking back at your terrific book, which I highly recommend to people trying to understand how we got where we are, called The Russia Hand. You wrote an account of one of your early dealings with Putin in that, and you said, “What really struck my colleagues and me was the aplomb, smugness, and brazenness with which Putin lied.” So, in that sense, perhaps there might be some overlap, but yes, I also have the impression of Putin as very controlled—a man who knows his brief, who really even in his political office of president has seemed like a case officer sort of graduated up. Talbott: Well, maybe, Susan, this would be a part of the conversation when we could bring in other historical figures in this drama. I’m reading, in galleys a new biography of Gorbachev. It is just stupendous. Glasser: It is. It’s terrific. Talbott: Be sure to—Glasser: This will come out in September, I believe. Talbott: Yes, indeed. And get Bill Taubman in front of the microphones for your podcast. It’s terrific. The two most important things, and maybe the list will go on to three or four, that happened in the late ‘80s, when Gorbachev came to power, is that he was convinced that the iron fist, the use of hard and brutal power, was counterproductive. That’s a—in Washington, that’s a word that’s sort of a euphemism for stupid. And he didn’t do away with Soviet power, either internally or externally, but he moderated it to a significant degree, and used a more sort of proto-democratic means to decide on what policy would be. That is a legacy that Yeltsin brought into the Russian government after the collapse of the U.S.S.R., even though Gorbachev and Yeltsin became bitter enemies, Yeltsin went to his grave hating Gorbachev, but there was actually—they were like a pair of wrestlers, a tag team of wrestlers. Glasser: Right, they were locked in each other’s mutual embrace. Talbott: That took the Soviet Union down. Gorbachev did not mean to destroy the Soviet Union; he was trying to save it. Yeltsin, having been kicked out, as it were, from the leadership, was bent on destroying the Soviet Union, largely so he would have an independent Russia to be the president of. But the concept of what the governance of Russia should be, and the behavior of Russia abroad should be, was reformist, and very welcome, not just to the west, but it was welcome to a lot of Russians. And now comes the issue of the truth. Glasnost is a Russian word that, once upon a time, entered into our vocabulary here. And it basically meant deal with the truth. Putin has gone back to the Big Lie. For example, just one that both of us knew and covered, he never misses a chance to accuse the West—and that means particularly the United States—from trying to tear the Soviet Union apart. The facts are that it was exactly the opposite. George H.W. Bush did everything he could, not only to buck up Gorbachev as the president of Russia, but also, to persuade the leaders of the other Soviet republics to give Gorbachev more time. And in Ukraine, for example, they basically booed him. This was the—Glasser: The famous chicken George speech. Talbott: The chicken Kiev.Glasser: Chicken Kiev, yes. George and Kiev chicken. Talbott: And I think it actually hurt him in the election. That is, President Bush. Glasser: And they think that it did. I mean, certainly that’s their view of it, is in 1992 election that Bill Clinton won, and that brought you and Bill Clinton into the White House, and into making the decisions about how the United States would handle a post-Soviet Russia. So, there’s two key things I wanted to ask you about in that period of time. One is, of course, NATO enlargement and the expansion of NATO, because that is another element of Vladimir Putin’s argument right now about his grievance with the West. It comes very much to NATO enlargement, and I was struck by the fact that it was controversial here, too. And in your book, you write that “it seemed like virtually everyone I knew from academia, journalism, think tanks, was against NATO enlargement at that time,” here in Washington, as well as the Russians. But we made that decision. In hindsight, was that the right decision, or does Putin have a point? Talbott: It was the right decision and Putin does not have a point, but he thinks he does, and a lot of people think he does. Glasser: Well, he’s really spun it into a very compelling narrative for his people. Talbott: I suspect that you revere George Kennan as much as I did, and do. I think among other things, he was prophetic; I can’t remember if it was the Long Telegram, or the X article, but they were both essentially the same document. He basically said that containment would allow the Soviet Union, over time, to mellow. And that, in a way, is what actually happened. One of the more uncomfortable days of my time in government was to pick up The New York Times and see on the op-ed page, a column by George Kennan, saying something close to the expansion of NATO is the greatest catastrophe—geopolitical catastrophe—Glasser: He was against it when it was created, though. Talbott: Yeah, exactly. Good for you. Thank you, thank you. Yes, he was never a fan of NATO. I was—what was I? I was one year old, so I was present at the creation, but I wasn’t aware of it. Glasser: Involved in it. Talbott: But let’s go back to—so, there were a lot of my friends and people I admired hugely, and also, and you know some of the Russian friends that I’m not going to name, who I thought were the hope of the future, who bolstered first Gorbachev and then Yeltsin, and were friends of the United States. And said, “Why are you doing this to us?” Expanding NATO. The answer was—there’s a historical answer, and then there was a present tense answer and a future answer.This historical answer was, why should these central European countries that were overrun by the Nazis, and had much of their populations destroyed and their countries destroyed, and then had decades of the jackboot of the Soviet Union on their neck, and then to be told that no, we don’t think that we can extend the protection of NATO to your countries because it will hurt the Russians’ feelings.That just didn’t fly. And it was also important for them, the countries in the former Warsaw Pact, and of course, the three Baltic republics of the Soviet Union to have NATO protections so that they wouldn’t have to remilitarize. We could have had wars in, say, between Hungary and Romania, like the wars that we had in Yugoslavia, had it not been for the expansion of NATO.The last point is that Bill Perry, who is somebody I was honored to work with in government when he was the defense secretary, he was very, very chary about expanding NATO, but the president decided to do it, and on a couple of occasions, not only did Bill Perry make the points that I have just made, but said, another reason we should have a robust and expanded NATO. is because we don’t know if Russia will go bad again—will break bad. Glasser: Well, and that, I think, is a key point. Talbott: He called it the hedge argument. Glasser: And a lot of people would say, in fact, that’s being vindicated right now, which comes to the question of Vladimir Putin. And did we misread him when he first came to power; that he was going to be the architect of the shift back to something more revisionist, more aggressive? Talbott: Well, if you talk to people like Toomas Ilves—Glasser: The former president of Estonia. Talbott: Yes, very recently, you know, he thinks that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and other countries, including those not actually in NATO, like Finland and Sweden, are very glad that NATO did expand, and that it is more or less—and we’ll come to the less in a minute, if you want to get back to our president—more or less still there to protect the—not just the political and security interests of the West, but the values of the West. But let—can we jump to President Trump? Glasser: Let’s do it. Hey, you know, that’s our obsession these days. Talbott: I’m still reeling over what I should have expected, and that is pulling out of the Paris climate accord. But I also am still reeling from President Trump’s refusal to personally validate Article V, which is mutual defense for our NATO allies. That, as a—how to put it—as a lacuna, a failure to say something, I think has had a very dangerous and damaging effect on the most successful military alliance in history. And by the way, you can—when he went to the summit, and everybody expected he would say something about Article V, because Tillerson had said it, Kelly had said it—Glasser: Mattis. Talbott: McMaster had said it, and Mattis had said it. So, all we needed was for the commander in chief to say it, and he didn’t say it, and the—I think from that day forward, unless he finds a way of remediating this, the Atlantic community was less safe, and less together. Glasser: Well—Talbott: Oh, and sorry. And the shampanskoye—Russian champagne bottles were popping their corks. Glasser: Of course, they were. Talbott: In the Kremlin. Glasser: And actually, Putin just gave an interview yesterday, in which he underscored this, and they said, “Well, the uncertainty inside NATO, does that benefit Russia?” And Putin said, “Absolutely. Absolutely. No question.” Talbott: So, he doesn’t always lie. Glasser: Well, okay, but so, you pointed out that, you know, Trump’s own advisers have all endorsed this. They even, you know, a source in the White House even told The New York Times that he was going to say that Article V was a pillar. You know, clearly it was in the speech; it’s been taken out. And so, it reflects Trump’s own views. What does that do to the adults in the room theory? When you and I sat in this room in January, and we tried to puzzle through, you know, what is this going to be like, right, there was still a sense of, well, maybe it will be okay, because he’s appointed grownups, I think was the phrase that you and others have used. What do you think of the grownup theory of Trump management now? Talbott: Well, I don’t want to—I don’t want to characterize or cartoonize the president of the United States as a child. He’s a septuagenarian who thinks he can both deal and bully his way through life. It’s worked for him in a number of ways before his political career, his extraordinary political career. And he seems to think that it still works.But it is certainly shaking up the world more than I suspect—I hope he doesn’t realize how much it has shaken up the world. I had a very high placed Asian official from a major ally in Asia not long ago, where you’re sitting, who shook his head with sorrow, and said, “Washington, D.C. is now the epicenter of instability in the world.” Which doesn’t mean that there’s violence going on here. What it means is something that our friends and allies around the world have taken for granted for 70 years is no longer something that they can take for granted. Glasser: Kind of mind-blowing, isn’t it? So, what about these advisers? The secretary of state has been disregarded even when it came to climate as well as potentially on NATO. The secretary of defense—I know that you personally advised some people that they should go to work with Trump, if their consciences allowed them to do so. Do you think, in hindsight, that that was a mistake, that they shouldn’t have gone to work for him? Talbott: No, and it’s a matter of record that one of my great friends, somebody who has been a mentor of mine, even though she is considerably younger—Fiona Hill, who has been at Brookings for about—longer than I have, about 15, 16 years; a world-class expert, not just on Russia, but she and Cliff Gaddy and other of our colleagues have produced what pretty much everybody thinks is the most insightful biography of Putin.And to the great credit of somebody in the White House—I don’t want to get anybody in trouble—she is now the the senior director for Russia and Europe, and we at Brookings are very proud that she is there, and I think over time, I hope she will have lots of opportunities to get the policy—to help get the policy right. Glasser: But she already seems to be under attack by other factions. Talbott: I saw that. I saw that. It was disgusting. Glasser: Yes, well, she’s—you know, this is sort of this kind of alt-right propaganda saying that she was an instrument—Talbott: The Roger Stone stuff? Glasser: Right, and saying she’s an instrument of George Soros, right, or something. But you know, it suggests this is the way they fight inside the White House, and we know that certainly not everyone, including potentially the president himself, shares Fiona’s views of Russia. So, I guess my question is, well, what—you know, what good can someone like that do if he doesn’t listen to his advisors? Talbott: Well, let’s hope that he listens to his advisers. I mean, there have been, whether it’s the—moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—there is flexibility, depending on who’s in the room, and I guess we’re at a stage—what are we? 130, 140 days in? Something like that. Glasser: Every day feels like multiple days. Talbott: Yes, that it’s taken a whole lot longer than we hoped; there’s no guarantee—in fact, there are—there’s reason to worry that it won’t happen, but let’s just hope that the combination of good people—we should come to the State Department, maybe, for just a moment—that good people and the rationality of somebody who nobody has ever, I think—I’m talking about the president--said is a stupid person. He is just basically—his engine is working on the fuel that has got him this far, and he’s going to have to put different fuel in, and make some changes in the engine. Glasser: Okay, so let’s talk about the State Department. Talbott: And the course that he wants to take us on. Glasser: Let’s talk about the State Department. Trump has proposed massive cuts of up to 30 percent. It’s unlikely that Congress will go along with it, but clearly, there is a sense that diplomacy is not the engine driving the foreign policy right now, of the Trump administration. It’s unclear how much Rex Tillerson is listened to. You navigated the upper reaches of the State Department for a long time; you’re very familiar with what the State Department can and can’t do. You were the head of an advisory board to Secretaries Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Does that still exist? Have you met with Rex Tillerson? Talbott: At a minimum, it’s gone to sleep. It’s suspended. There’s been no—and by the way, I would think that an incoming administration would want other people for the foreign affairs policy board. That would be perfectly natural, but there’s not a whole lot of people around there that they would be advising, and what I hear about Secretary Tillerson is that he doesn’t get around the building that much. And even if he did get around the building, there are a lot of empty offices. Glasser: Right, they haven’t appointed people, even for these key roles and assistant secretaries for Europe or the Middle East. You know, do you think—Talbott: But at least they have a deputy secretary of state. Glasser: Well, there was quite a drama surrounding that, really, but neither the—Talbott: Well, but the—I think the outcome—I’ve met with only once with John Sullivan, and I was very impressed by him. Glasser: Interesting. And do you think you—I know you know Rex Tillerson slightly. Do you think that he is a marginal figure? Do you think he will have influence on Trump? Talbott: I don’t know. While he has no public policy background, and certainly no traditional diplomacy background, he has run a company that is larger, and certainly richer than a lot of countries in the world, and he has been all around the world. And energy is a huge part of our economic future. And he has moved in the direction of advocating regulations that will mitigate climate change. So, I was certain—not just in comparison to some other names that were floated at the time, but I thought it might be a good appointment, and I still hope it will be. Glasser: Well, that brings us back to the other subject we want to make sure to finish on, which is Vladimir Putin. If Trump has always expressed a sort of admiration for Putin as a strongman, he—Putin has been, in some ways, as unpredictable as Trump is proving to be on the world’s stage. And back in 2000, when he came to power, certainly it was a very unlikely rise. Some people in the U.S. government at the time thought perhaps he would be sort of a modernizer, but certainly not somebody who would kind of shut down democracy inside Russia.Some people early on were warning about it. You started a long article that you wrote for us in POLITICO Magazine, with a late January 2000 column from William Safire that more or less accurately predicted Putinism as he called it, and talked about a Kremlin leader bent on developing a cult of personality, suppressing the truth, but of course, both Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, at various times, thought he was a guy we could do business with, thought he—there was a more benign version possible. Did we misread Putin and what do you think he’s up to now? Talbott: I think he’s on the same course. And I was always skeptical of the sunnier side of Putinology. And I think that’s been born out. He is who he was, and you know, he’s often described as a spy or an ex-spy. That’s actually not the right profession. He is an expert on counterespionage. And people in that line of work regard it as a virtue to be paranoid. And I think that is very much a part of this. But you know, just staying with both the Putin issue, and the Trump issue, and we’re coming to the end of our conversation, which I’ve much appreciated, let’s turn to a more positive trend in Europe. I think that in just a matter of months ago, and certainly after Brexit, many of us thought that the political West, the transatlantic community, was going to fall apart and it was going to fall apart on the European continent. The bad news is that it could fall apart because of what’s going on, on this side of the Atlantic, and I’m not referring to Canada. But I think what we have seen in the last couple of months are—is some resilience on good policies and good values, and smart politics, and good leadership in Europe. And I think that the—I’m obviously talking about the Dutch, and now the French, and it’s—one wants to be careful about making predictions about Germany, but things seem to be going in a good direction there. Most of the credit goes to those countries and their citizens and their leaders, but I think the positive direction in which Europe now is going is also a consequence of an anti-Trump phenomenon—a backlash. Glasser: Well, that’s right. He’s so unpopular across the political spectrum there. Talbott: And the Russians—namely Putin—doing what Russians have tended to do for centuries, which is overplay their hand. Glasser: So, you think intervening in these elections was an example of that? Talbott: Well, I’m sure you’ve been talking to French friends who are absolutely committed, or are absolutely convinced of it. And a couple of my Dutch friends said that one reason that that rather ugly ethnonationalistic movement didn’t become the government was because they—the Dutch saw what was happening in this country. Glasser: Okay, so let’s—we’ve got to finish. I know we could talk all day, and this is really a master class, I think, in the twin subjects of our time: Putinology and Trumpology. But let’s bring it back here to Washington for the end of this conversation. Do you have any projections as to what we could expect as Washington digests this enormous Russiagate scandal? And do you feel that we’re headed towards, you know, years of inward-looking turmoil, and you know, obstruction of justice investigations? Talbott: Well, we should end on a dramatic note, but in all honesty, I can’t give you a dramatic note. There’s—Glasser: The firing of James Comey was a pretty dramatic moment, in Washington terms. Talbott: Yes, I know. And there have been others since that you have referred to in this conversation. There has got to be fire behind this smoke. Whether it is lethal fire for the judgments that will be made on our Constitution, I do not know. There are theories that it has more to do with conflict of interest issues, which are also very important. But—and of course, the other issue is the partisan context of Washington politics. The Republican Party is clearly and properly shaken by this. But it hasn’t shaken itself into a set of decisions or a strategy for doing what I would hope the Republican Party would do in combination with the Democratic Party, and that is to, when possible, help the administration when they are getting us back on a responsible track, and criticizing and checking the administration when it’s on an irresponsible track. The most dramatic example of which, of course, is—does not directly relate to Russia; it’s the climate change decision of the last day. Glasser: Which was actually cheered by the Republicans in Congress, for the most part, so. Talbott: Well, that’s by no means a happy ending note. Glasser: Well, I’m happy because we’ve all got to spend this time with you, and I think we all need a lot of history and a lot of navigation as we try to understand, you know, this surprising and weird convergence of Russia, once again, into the center of our American political conversation. But Strobe, you’ve had a great run here at Brookings, that’s the other thing. We want to congratulate you. You’re leaving this place as a pillar of Washington. Do you think—Talbott: Wait, wait, wait. We’re in the office of the president of Brookings now. In November, I’m going to jaywalk across Massachusetts Avenue, and join my colleagues who are scholars. Glasser: Well, it’s a great thing to be able to do that, right? But do you think think tanks are going to survive? I mean—Talbott: Oh, yes. Glasser: They’re sort of under assault, too. Talbott: I think more than ever—more than ever we and our peer institutions and you know them all, are committed to some basic goals and values that our democracy simply cannot do without. One of them is civility of discourse, rational thinking, real expertise, respect for the facts, and nonpartisanship. And none of those are doing great elsewhere in this town, but on think tank row, I think they’re doing fine. Glasser: All right, there you go. Strobe Talbott, thank you so much for joining us on The Global POLITICO, and thank you, of course, to all of you listeners. We are delighted to have you with us, and you can listen to The Global POLITICO on iTunes, on POLITICO’s website, and whatever is your favorite podcast platform. And of course, you can email me any time with ideas, thoughts, feedback at [email protected] Thanks again, and thank you, especially, Strobe.Talbott: My pleasure, Susan.
They thought the president would commit to the principle of collective defense. They were wrong.
WASHINGTON ― White House chief strategist Steve Bannon withdrew from a planned appearance at one of Washington’s premiere mainstream think tanks after scholars expressed alarm that the institution would be giving legitimacy and a friendly forum to one of the most controversial members of President Donald Trump’s administration. Over the past month, staff members at the center-left Brookings Institution became aware that the think tank’s leadership had invited Bannon to address its board of trustees meeting in June, according to multiple Brookings staff members who requested anonymity to speak openly with HuffPost. Because it would be a board meeting, it would not have been open to the public. David Nassar, vice president of communications at Brookings, confirmed the invitation. Scholars at all levels of the organization developed concerns about Bannon’s appearance and whether they would be able to press him and engage in an open dialogue, according to the Brookings staff members. “There were some who thought it was no big deal. Some of us quite decidedly felt it was a very big deal, ethically obtuse and stunningly stupid,” said a senior staff member. Employees had an opportunity to express their worries to Brookings President Strobe Talbott at three in-person meetings last week, Nassar said. On Wednesday, Brookings informed staff that Bannon had decided not to attend. They did not state a reason for his decision. The White House did not return a request for comment on why Bannon backed out. “The rank-and-file worked hard and the leadership was responsive [in the meetings]. I’m proud to say I work here with how this played out,” said a senior staff member who attended one of the meetings. But when Bannon canceled, Brookings had not yet had the time to consider whether it wanted to change the format of his appearance, let alone inform him that they wanted a chance for staff to engage with him more openly. “Things never got that far,” Nassar said. As a result, the cancellation was apparently unrelated to any of the internal deliberations inside Brookings, he observed. Bannon is often credited as the intellectual forebear of Trump’s harshest nativist rhetoric and policies, earning him a notorious reputation among White House critics. Prior to joining the Trump campaign as chairman, Bannon chaired the parent company of far-right news site Breitbart, which has trafficked in racist, sexist and anti-Semitic content. As a conservative filmmaker, pundit and radio host, Bannon has expressed his view that the West is on an apocalyptic collision course with the Islamic world. Brookings often welcomes controversial figures to its downtown Washington offices. The think tank invited Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to give a speech there last year. The event was not without major incident: Talbott threatened to cancel the speech, according to Foreign Policy, after Erdogan’s security personnel attacked Western and Turkish journalists and protesters outside the event. A Turkish official responded by preventing the clash from escalating further, and the speech was allowed to proceed as planned. After delivering his remarks, Erdogan was subject to thorough questioning by Brookings scholars that was broadcast live online. It was unclear to staff members whether they would have had the opportunity to grill Bannon with similar rigor, the senior staff member said. “When you have someone who is a perpetrator of fake news speaking to an institution that’s focused on getting truth out there, those things compete,” the staffer said. “There was real concern about the nature of that engagement being closed.” Brookings always invites members of the sitting administration to its annual board meetings, Nassar and other staffers noted. Often, a trustee will moderate a discussion with the official, perhaps with questions from other board members and/or scholars at the institution. “The manner in which we were handling it was completely consistent with how we’ve handled other board of trustees meeting,” Nassar said. “He is not coming. No solid information why,” said a senior staff member. “That said, if you worked for Trump, would you want just now to face any neutral audience?” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
The five-journalist-committee that controls press access to one of the Senate press galleries again tabled Breitbart’s request for permanent credentials on Tuesday morning. The site’s current temporary credentials will sunset on May 31.“They are just not ready for a credential,” standing committee member Joe Morton of the Omaha World Herald sniffed to USA Today. The sticking points for the committee include these Breitbart shortcomings: The lack of properly zoned office space for the site; the ties between Breitbart’s masthead and Steve Bannon’s nonprofit Government Accountability Institute; and the right-wing Mercer family’s ownership stake in the site. Oh, and the charge that Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart chief who now works as chief strategist for President Donald Trump, has not sufficiently separated himself from the site, and therefore Breitbart is not sufficiently independent.You don’t have to be a Breitbart fan—and I’m not—to ask whether the site deserves this kind of rebuff and rejection. Does not the site run Washington news? Does not the site attract millions of readers (15.3 million in February compared with Politico’s 23.8 million, according to comScore)? Haven’t media figures moved to government service before Bannon? A short list would include Edward R. Murrow, Strobe Talbott, John Chancellor, David Axelrod, Amanda Bennett, Pat Buchanan and Bernard Kalb. A dozen journalists, including Jay Carney and Tony Snow, have left journalism to become the president’s flack. Since when is going through that revolving door disqualifying?I’d wager that the standing committee’s upturned nose has more to do with Breitbart’s outré views on race, its toadyish support of Trump during the campaign and through the first 100 days, its shameful coverage of the Shirley Sherrod video, the witless misogyny of former staffer Milo Yiannopoulos and its unrelenting partisanship than it does its fitness to carry the “members only” card that allows reporters to collect news in Washington’s official sanctums.If the standing committee wants to blackball Breitbart because its funders, the Mercer family, routinely take activist positions or have donated deeply to political campaigns, may I suggest that they arrange to have the credentials of Bloomberg News reporters revoked? Michael Bloomberg, who owns almost 90 percent of Bloomberg News’ parent company, gave more than $23 million to federal candidates, parties, PACs and other political groups in the 2016 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org. He finances an anti-NRA political group and has pledged millions to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal activism. And, you may recall, Mike left his media and financial information business to join government, serving three terms as the mayor of New York City. Rupert Murdoch has a history of spending on federal candidates, too. I would call for the credentialing committees to take back the Fox News Channel and Wall Street Journal press cards, but somebody might take me up on it.If it were the government denying Breitbart their precious press passes, the usual complainers would launch a First Amendment stink like nothing you’ve ever heard. I would be one of the complainers. But by delegating the credentialing process, Congress keeps its hands clean, allowing the press to suppress the press. The compromise has worked pretty well, with the rules for membership keeping the press galleries free of lobbyists masquerading as Capitol Hill reporters since 1879.But there has been a countertendency on Capitol Hill for the press to use the gallery rules to quash upstart competitors. After the advent of radio in the 1920s, broadcast reporters repeatedly sought and were denied official credentials from the protectionist print galleries. Not until 1939, when Congress approved the establishment of a Radio Gallery (later the Radio-Television Gallery) did broadcasters enjoy the access to members of Congress that print reporters took for granted.It’s hard to oppose press galleries’ efforts to enforce rules of membership that preserve reporter status on Capitol Hill for real reporters. But the standing committee’s rejection of Breitbart’s application isn’t about that. It’s about banning right-wing reporters from the halls of Congress. And it stinks of licensing. No less a wise man than the New York Times’ Glenn Thrush took to Twitter to advocate membership in the gallery for Breitbart reporters today when he responded to a reader who asked why he considered Breitbart “legit.”“Their reporters ask questions, report news,” Thrush wrote.Make the Thrush threshold the test for gallery membership and skip the ancillary garbage about ownership and revolving doors and political litmus tests. ******Disclosure: I was Glenn Thrush’s office spouse in his last two years at Politico. He cheated on me all of the time. Send snide comments to [email protected] My email alerts and my Twitter feed crave your vote for membership. My RSS feed wouldn't belong to any gallery that would have it as a member.
Медовый месяц Дональда Трампа и Владимира Путина, похоже, завершился. И не из-за химической атаки в Сирии, а потому что Америка не перестает представлять Кремль как империю зла.Вовсе не химическая атака 4 апреля в Сирии положила конец виртуальному роману Дональда Трампа и Владимира Путина. Точки соприкосновения, обозначавшиеся во время предвыборной кампании, исчезли, "когда демократы и республиканцы из истеблишмента убедились, что отношения с Кремлем могут привести президента к краху", - говорит политолог Джон Миршаймер (John Mearsheimer), вспоминая неистощимые запасы свидетельств и доказательств, собранных вокруг непрозрачных связей Трампа с Россией. Сначала появились хакеры, грязные торговые связи, машины пропаганды запустили производство фейковых новостей в отношении Путина и Трампа. Далее настал черёд лазутчиков и сотрудников Трампа. Майкл Флинн (Michael Flynn) много и не совсем кстати говорил с российским послом Сергеем Кисляком, бывший руководитель предвыборной кампании Трампа Пол Манафорт (Paul Manafort) консультировал пророссийского лидера Украины Виктора Януковича, за бизнесменом Картером Пейджем (Carter Page) - сам Трамп то заявляет, что он с ним не знаком, то предлагает его кандидатуру на какой-то пост в президентской администрации - было установлено наблюдение в соответствии с постановлением предназначенного специально для этого суда. В июле прошлого года ФБР начало расследовать предосудительную связь между вселенной Трампа и Кремлем. Именно директор ФБР Джеймс Коми (James Comey) подтвердил то обстоятельство, вылившееся в форму асимметричного акта извинения перед Хиллари Клинтон (Hillary Clinton), что из-за расследования, связанного с публикацией ее электронных писем во время предвыборной кампании, случайно обнаруженной Коми, она, возможно, проиграла выборы. Он поступил, как некоторые арбитры, несоразмерно наказывающие за фол в попытке компенсировать ошибку, совершенную до этого в отношении другой команды. Для кого-то это стало подтверждением того, что даже глава американской разведки выполняет приказы Кремля. Давление внутренней политики стало невыносимым даже для бесспорного мастера отвлекающих маневров и запутывания следов при помощи Twitter, а окружение, ищущее доказательств российского заговора, превратило Путина из актива для привлечения националистической прослойки, которая привела Трампа в Белый дом, в груз, способный привести его к гибели. История любви авторитарных лидеров осталась только в скетчах программы Saturday Night Live. В реальности Трамп с президентской серьезностью заявил: "Возможно, мы переживаем худший момент в отношениях с Россией". Прежние полные недоверия отношения восстановились после невероятного периода очарованности друг другом. Американское сознание, таким образом, вернулось в состояние равновесия после сомнений, которые вызывал президент, ухаживавший за мастером глобального антиамериканизма, самопровозглашенного нарушителя либерального порядка с атлантической тягой. Эти перверсивные игры в любовь и ненависть с российским медведем живут в атавистических клетках американской души. Есть причина, по которой среди мириад возможностей, предлогов и поводов, представленных критикам непредсказуемым президентом во время его восхождения к власти (а все это материал самого высшего качества), он в результате решил сосредоточить силы на российском вопросе. Ни одна другая конфликтная тема не захватывает в той же мере воображения разнородного фронта сопротивления Трампу, потому что, когда речь заходит о русских, все становится легально, любому обвинению можно верить, нет никаких преступлений и нарушений, которых нельзя вменить в вину, прямо или косвенно, огромному геополитическому противнику. Китай, который в постиндустриальных джунглях "забытого человека" является хищником, совершающим налеты на рабочие места и сливающим дешевую промышленную продукцию на Запад, не называют источником и сообщником любого зла на свете. Первенство вины принадлежит Москве. Этот простейшую задачу можно изучить на примере досье на Трампа, подготовленного бывшим британским шпионом Кристофером Стилом (Christopher Steele), о связях Кремля с кандидатом от республиканцев, опубликованного в прессе незадолго до инаугурации президента США. В данном случае речь идёт не о независимом докладе разведки, а о политическом исследовании, подготовленном по заказу противников Трампа, и как таковое оно отражает интересы заказчика. Нарисованная картина представляет собой гигантский заговор, в который ловкие чиновники не только втягивают Трампа в греховный альянс, фактически вербуя его как двойного агента секретных служб Кремля, но и превращают его в марионетку в его руках, так как президент становится жертвой шантажа из-за искусной подборки компромата.Некоторые контакты, описанные в этом досье, полном ссылок на анонимные источники, впоследствии были подтверждены независимыми сторонами, но в целом оно напоминает параноидальную и манипуляционную силу, "эксплуатирующую личную одержимость и сексуальные извращения Трампа", до такой степени, что в нем фиксируются его предполагаемые встречи с проститутками, устраивающими в номере московского отеля "золотой дождь" в постели, где спал Обама во время своего официального визита в Россию. Это набор гипербол, строящихся на некоторых элементах правды, идеально соответствующих предрассудкам тех, кто его читает. Ценность этого досье с точки зрения расследования представляется почти нулевой, однако содержащееся в нем свидетельство восприятия Америкой России ценно для исследования коллективной психологии. Если разбираться в американском менталитете, отталкиваясь от геополитических хроник, мы находим русофобские настроения, и, казалось бы, они возвращают нас к антагонизму (безусловно, взаимному) эпохи холодной войны. Полвека конкуренции экономических моделей и радикально противоположной жизненной философии в мире, сплотившемся вокруг двух блоков, держащих друг друга под постоянным ядерным прицелом, постоянная конкуренция в любой области, от космической гонки до хоккея и шахмат, обычно закрепляет образ экзистенциального врага, но антироссийские подозрения не сопоставимы с антисоветскими. Этот вопрос более глубинный. Но насколько? Если антироссийские настроения характеризуют исторический паттерн, то что же лежит в основе этого конфликта, то скрытого и затихшего, то полного угроз и воинственного, готового пренебречь протокольными постулатами? Именно здесь начинается конфликт интерпретаций. Дэвид Фоглсонг (David Foglesong), историк отношений Соединенных Штатов и России из университета Рутгерс, объясняет нашему изданию, что в последние 150 лет антироссийские настроения в Америке претерпели значительные вариации интенсивности, но при этом, в сущности, всегда сохранялись: "Америка переживала моменты сильного антагонизма и даже ненависти к иностранным государствам в определенных обстоятельствах, но эти страсти приходят и уходят, а в американском подсознании сохраняется неприязнь к России, потому что она связана с идентичностью, а не только с интересами". Был период в 19 веке, объясняет профессор, когда "Россия, вероятно, была нашим лучшим другом в Европе", но статус отношений ухудшился, потому что "Америка носит в себе ощущение миссии о трансформации России, она видит свое предназначение в том, чтобы она уподобилась ее собственной природе". В книге "Миссия Америки и "Империя зла": крестовый поход во имя "Освобождения России" с 1881 года" ученый проанализировал попытки поколений американских политиков, интеллектуалов и активистов спровоцировать перемены в российском культурном устройстве, начиная первым делом с понимания свободы, "экспортируемой" даже за пределы Кавказа. Экзистенциальная миссия США синтезируется в категории "американской исключительности", которая, в сущности, подразумевает, по словам Фоглсонга, "моральное преимущество Америки над всеми прочими государствами. Америка представляет себя не обычным государством, а как агента истории, который не подчиняется ее законам". Неслучайно "исключительность" - это термин, который действует на нервы Кремлю. Когда в 2013 году Путин написал статью для газеты New York Times, чтобы обратиться непосредственно к американскому народу в один из наиболее сложных моментов сирийского кризиса, он раскритиковал заявления Барака Обамы об исключительности: "Считаю очень опасным закладывать в головы людей идею об их исключительности, чем бы это ни мотивировалось. Есть государства большие и малые, богатые и бедные, с давними демократическими традициями и которые только ищут свой путь к демократии. И они проводят, конечно, разную политику. Мы разные, но когда мы просим Господа благословить нас, мы не должны забывать, что Бог создал нас равными". Религиозный эгалитаризм в качестве упрека американской демократии? Удивительный парадокс. Чтобы не уступать, министр иностранных дел России в другой сложный момент сирийского кризиса (тот, что мы наблюдаем сейчас) поделился с журналом National Interest своими размышлениями о злодеяниях администрации Обамы: "Они были одержимы собственной исключительностью", - заявил он, решаясь истолковать историю основания американской демократии: отцы-основатели Соединенных Штатов тоже говорили о своей ведущей роли и считали американскую нацию исключительной, но они хотели, чтобы другие лишь учитывали американский опыт и следовали американскому примеру. Они никогда не предлагали США навязывать, в том числе силой, свои ценности другим". Ирония этой древней борьбы с исключительностью, с восприятием себя над историей состоит в том, что этот термин выдумал не кто иной, как Сталин. Обычно его приписывают Алексису де Токвилю, однако это понятие ни разу не встречается в книге "Демократия в Америке", зато его можно обнаружить в свидетельствах разговора между лидером американских коммунистов Джеем Лавстоном (Jay Lovestone) и Сталиным в 1929 году. Лавстон передавал ему печальное сообщение о том, что американский пролетариат совершенно не заинтересован в революции. Сталин в ярости сказал ему возвращаться в Америку и положить конец "ереси американской исключительности". Он говорил о ереси по отношению к марксистской догме, само собой разумеется. Государство с наиболее развитым капитализмом, то есть наиболее созревшее для революции, не отвечало законам коммунистической революции, поэтому Сталин считал его "исключительным" в плохом смысле, как патологический случай в мире, стремившемся к подъему пролетариата. Негодование Сталина было связано с тем, что именно там, где пролетариат должен с триумфом одерживать победу, он даже не осознавал себя самое. Недовольство было связано с разрывом между ожиданиями и реальностью. По мнению Фоглсонга, латентная русофобия в сознании американцев срабатывает аналогичным образом: "Старая мысль о трансформации России в соответствии с американской моделью во многих случаях казалась доступной и даже неизбежной, но, когда она так и не осуществилась, и Россия сохранила свою идентичность, эйфория превратилась во фрустрацию и антагонизм. Эта динамика существует еще со времен большевистской революции и риторики империи зла. С точки зрения конфликта идентичности, холодная война заняла место предыдущего столкновения. Когда Соединенные Штаты в 1905 году сыграли роль посредника после российско-японской войны, смягчив унижение Москвы, они видят возможность трансформации империи в западном направлении". В остальном, реформистские сообщества, такие как Общество друзей русской свободы (Society of Friends of Russian Freedom) уже давно с некоторым успехом проводили свою работу, настраивая общественное мнение в англоязычном мире на необходимость свержения царского режима и построения правительства либерального толка. "Бесполезно говорить, что Октябрьская революция безжалостно разрушила эти иллюзии, воздвигнув систему, оказавшуюся еще хуже, чем та, которую предлагали реформировать американцы", - объясняет Фоглсонг. Крах Советского Союза - это еще один важный момент, когда Америка вновь видит приоткрывшуюся перед ней возможность спокойно, с применением либеральных инструментов ассимилировать своего главного соперника 20-го века. Под трубящие сигналы о конце истории Запад видит, как материализуется возможность привлечь к себе Россию. Билл Келлер (Bill Keller), бывший главный редактор газеты New York Times, который на закате холодной войны был корреспондентом в Москве и даже получил за это Пулитцеровскую премию, вспоминает в разговоре с нашим изданием, что "в горбачевские годы Америка пережила волну эйфории по России. "Горби" стал в США более популярной "рок-звездой", чем в России. С тех пор, я бы сказал, отношение Америки к России можно было бы определить как беспечное". Беспечность убивает, как гласит военный девиз, часто появляющийся на стенах американских военных баз, точно так же оптимизм эпохи перестройки оказался лишь предвестником новой депрессии. Энн Эплбаум (Anne Applebaum), журналистка польского происхождения, родившаяся в Соединенных Штатах и тоже, в свою очередь, получившая Пулитцеровскую премию, уверена, что русофобии в Америке не существует, а доминирует в ее отношении к России скорее равнодушие: "Россия не волновала американские политические круги до самого ее вторжения на Украину. Доказательства российской коррупции игнорировались, военное вмешательство в Грузию и политическое участие в Центральной Европе было сведено к минимуму, да и даже после Украины администрация соблюдала осторожность. Лишь когда Россия вмешалась в американские выборы, выявляя странные отношения между Трампом и Путиным, она действительно вызвала интерес со стороны США", - говорит нашему изданию Эплбаум. Одна из гипотез, объясняющих внезапную беспечность в отношении того, что незадолго до этого считалось "империей зла", - это предубеждение, что крах Советского Союза автоматически приведет к либерализации России. "Американцы в течение многих лет преувеличивали то расстояние, которое Россия прошла от своего прошлого, чтобы минимизировать наши позиции. Со временем стало все сложнее сохранять это оптимистическое отношение", - разъясняет Foglio Стивен Сестанович (Stephen Sestanovich), политолог из Колумбийского университета, занимавшийся отношениями с Россией в Совете национальной безопасности в администрации Рейгана и в Госдепе под управлением Клинтон. "Поворотным моментом, само собой, стал кризис на Украине. Когда-то я говорил русским, особенно, тем, кто занимался внешней политикой и безопасностью, что в Пентагоне никто не делал карьеру, занимаясь вопросами российской угрозы. Это оскорбляло некоторых моих друзей, считавших, что Россия заслуживает большего внимания, но это была правда. В какой-то момент это перестало быть так. Сегодня работа в сфере сдерживания угрозы со стороны России вновь представляет прекрасные возможности для карьеры. Кто несет ответственность за эти перемены? Путин", - говорит Сестанович. Если виртуальный медовый месяц Трампа и Путина, при оценке его с исключительно политической точки зрения, был аномалией, то в системе сближений и падений, ухаживания и отказов, напряжений и перезапусков отношений между двумя странами она оказалась встроена в сформировавшуюся динамику. Нельзя забывать, что целые команды чиновников-энтузиастов и специалистов по Советскому Союзу того же калибра, что и клинтонский Строуб Тэлботт (Strobe Talbott), активно работали в 90-е годы над ускорением процесса американизации, который представлялся неизбежным, а поколение спустя другие коллеги, такие как посол Майкл МакФол (Michael McFaul), с тем же рвением старались выполнить ту же миссию на фоне путинского правления. Ряд эпизодов ознаменовал завершение этого проекта, возобновив русофобию, которой, казалось, пришел конец вместе с историей Фрэнсиса Фукуямы. Мюнхенская конференция 2007 года, на которой Путин обвинил Америку в дестабилизации глобальной обстановки и в прочих грехах, война в Грузии, дело Ходорковского, вторжение на Украину, вмешательство в войну в Сирии. Теперь мы наблюдаем настойчивую поддержку режима Асада и шиитской оси, при помощи которой Москва проецирует свое влияние в ближневосточном регионе. В перерывах происходят встречи в Пратика ди Маре и разговоры на камеру о перезагрузке с красной кнопкой, и ничего из того, что могло бы обратить вспять направление отношений. Но оно не единственное в фазу развития после холодной войны. По мнению Фоглсонга, свидетельство того, что действия Америки до и после советского периода были направлены на глубокое реформирование российской концепции, а не только на сдерживание ее стратегического влияния, следует искать в параллельных судьбах двух Джорджей Кеннанов (George Kennan), дальних родственников, отметивших два периода в отношениях между США и Россией. Более известный из них был теоретиком сдерживания экспансионизма, свойственного советскому режиму, но, как он объяснял уже в "Длинной телеграмме" в 1946 году, продвижение и укрепление институтов либерального капиталистического Запада было необходимо, чтобы противостоять угрозе. Столкновение двух систем непременно должно было привести к ассимиляции одной стороной принципов второй. Менее известный из Кеннанов был путешественником, который на рубеже 19-20 веков отправился верхом в самые отдаленные регионы Сибири, объехал весь Кавказ вдоль и поперек, проехал Россию от Камчатки до Петербурга. Его влекли те же настроения, что и его родственника, и при помощи Общества друзей русской свободы он всячески пытался продвигать общественные модели, схожие с тем, что он знал у себя на родине. Он также стал основателем первой оппозиционной по отношению к царскому режиму газеты на английском языке "Свободная Россия". Именно это благонамеренное стремление Америки освободить Россию, спасая ее от нее самой, создало в коллективном сознании "презумпцию вины" русских. Это выражение использует Николай Петро (Nicolai Petro), профессор политологии университета Род-Айленда, работавший в Госдепартаменте при Джордже Буше-старшем. Ни одно другое государство не обвиняют одновременно в стольких мерзостях, отмечает Петро, начиная с нестабильности на Ближнем Востоке до победы Трампа, и эта свобода в обвинении Кремля является результатом процесса "снижения противника до иррациональности". "Российская культура, - объясняет Петро, - излагается как чуждая. Многие, от Обамы до Меркель, говорили, что Путин - непредсказуемый лидер, размышляющий категориями прошлого века. Правящий класс не считает, что доминирующие в геополитике теории, действуют и в России. Или, по крайней мере, в таком виде нам это преподносят. Отсюда следует тот факт, что Америка не должна оправдывать свою политику перед Москвой. Однако если эта предпосылка отношений между двумя державами рациональна и прозрачна, а другая - смутна и непонятна, легко увидеть, какой тип отношений может получить развитие". Единственный тип отношений, с точки зрения Петро, определяется "презумпцией превосходства универсальной либеральной системы, которая с искренними намерениями применяется для обработки собеседника". Если американская русофобия существует, то она порождена эйфорией в отношении России, чудесной возможностью вернуть Москву на правильную сторону истории, которая циклически появляется. И точно так же циклически исчезает.(http://inosmi.ru/politic/...)
Don’t buy what purports to be nationalism that’s engulfed politics in America and all over the world, former President Bill Clinton said Thursday; what’s actually at play, he argued, is more insidious and interconnected than that.“People who claim to want the nation-state are actually trying to have a pan-national movement to institutionalize separatism and division within borders all over the world,” Clinton said. “It’s like we’re all having an identity crisis at once — and it is an inevitable consequence of the economic and social changes that have occurred at an increasingly rapid pace.”Making his first major public appearance since his wife lost last year’s presidential election, Clinton did not discuss President Donald Trump specifically, but warned repeatedly against “us versus them” thinking that he said has become such an active part of politics in America, in the Brexit vote, in the Philippines and throughout Europe. The speech was the keynote at an event hosted by the Brookings Institution honoring the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.“The whole history of humankind is basically the definition of who is us and who is them, and the question of whether we should all live under the same set of rules,” Clinton said. He added that often, people “have found more political success and met the deep psychic needs people have had to feel that their identity requires them to be juxtaposed against someone else.”Brookings President Strobe Talbott, who was Clinton’s roommate when they were both Rhodes Scholars at Oxford University, and served as his deputy secretary of state, introduced his former boss, saying, “No American president has worked harder for peace in the Middle East, both in office and out.”Clinton repeatedly held up his old friend Rabin, who was assassinated in 1995, as the standard that contemporary politics is falling short of. Rabin was a man changed over his life, Clinton said, displayed courage and was so reliable that then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was so “in awe of him” that he was ready to make agreements based on trust.Rabin “was smart, he was careful, he understood the insecurities which roil through every society at every time—and instead of being paralyzed by them or trying to take advantage of them, he tried to take account and bring them along,” Clinton said.And going back 25 years in Israeli politics, Clinton reminded the audience that when Rabin became prime minister in 1992, he was subject to a “relentless assault on his legitimacy, his personal legitimacy by the radical right in Israel,” which included two rabbinic rulings justifying the killing of a Jew by another Jew. Rabin’s assassin was a Jewish Israeli opposed to the peace process, who cited such logic after shooting the prime minister at the end of a rally on Nov. 4, 1995.That, Clinton said, is another lesson to take from what happened to Rabin. “We have to find a way to bring simple, personal decency and trust back to our politics,” he said.Clinton called the day of the assassination his worst day in the White House, adding, “I remain convinced that had he lived we would have achieved a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians by 1998 and we’d be living in a different world today.”He recalled Rabin telling him once that he was making peace because otherwise, “Very soon we will either no longer be a democracy or no longer be a Jewish state.”Clinton urged leaders and their constituents to try to rediscover Rabin as a model, rather than continuing down the current path of politics, though “we are programmed biologically, instinctively, to prefer win-lose situations, us versus them.”“This is a very old story. It’s as old as the Holy Land, and much older. Ever since the first people stood up on the East African savanna, ever since the first families and clans,” Clinton said, “ever since people encountered the other. It is a very old story. And it always comes down to two things — are we going to live in an us-and-them world, or a world that we live in together?”Rabin’s tough-minded approach to finding ways to work and live together is what’s needed, Clinton said. “If you got that, in every age and time, the challenges we face can be resolved in a way to keep us going forward, instead of taking us to the edge of our destruction.”
Однажды у меня была онлайн-беседа с журналистом, чье имя вы сразу бы узнали, а началась она с вопроса ко мне: «Почему Россия?» Этот человек хотел узнать, почему мы являемся свидетелями направленной против Москвы кампании ненависти спустя десятилетия после развала СССР? Я попытался дать ему связный и исчерпывающий ответ, однако Twitter не способствует глубокой дискуссии такого рода, и поэтому я сохранил его в отдельном файле для того, чтобы позднее дать на него ответ. И вот сегодня, конечно же, настало время для ответа: Демократическая партия и прислуживающие ей средства массовой информации требуют проведения «расследования» (то есть сбора компрометирующих материалов) животрепещущего вопроса, который звучит так: не является ли президент Соединенных Штатов маньчжурским кандидатом? Или «путинской марионеткой», как довольно постыдно выразилась Хиллари Клинтон? Наши выведшие из-под контроля разведывательные ведомства с неистовым упорством гнут ту же самую линию.
THE BACKSTORY: How Trump got to yes on Gorusch -- PLAYBOOK EXCLUSIVE: PETRAEUS warns U.S. -- SCARAMUCCI UNDER FIRE -- BIDEN launches foundation -- B’DAY: CAA's Michael Kives
Listen to Playbook in 90 Seconds http://bit.ly/2kQMYba … Subscribe on iTunes http://apple.co/2eX6Eay … Visit the online home of Playbook http://politi.co/2f51JnfJUST A THOUGHT: Earlier this week, President Donald Trump mocked Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for crying about the plight of immigrants, saying he was faking, and wondering aloud from the White House who his acting coach was. Yesterday, he followed that up by calling him “Fake Tears Chuck Schumer” to his 23 million Twitter followers. Now he’s asking Schumer to expedite the consideration and support Neil Gorsuch, his nominee for the Supreme Court. Do you think that’s how this works, Mr. President?Good Wednesday morning and welcome to February. Yes, we expect Gorsuch to get confirmed. But Democrats are saying they want him to get 60 votes, daring Republicans to push him through on a majority vote. Gorsuch passed the Senate unanimously 2006 when President George W. Bush nominated him, but that matters little when talking about today’s political dynamics. Eight Democrats would need to join with Republicans to break the expected Democratic filibuster.AT LEAST SEVEN Democratic senators have gone on the record saying they won’t filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Chris Coons (Del.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Jon Tester (Mont.). THE REVIEWS TRUMP CARES ABOUT -- NYT -- 5 of 6 stories about Trump and ANOTHER six-column banner headline -- “TRUMP’S COURT PICK SETS UP POLITICAL CLASH.” He probably likes this one, referring to Gorsuch, “A Nominee Who Echoes Scalia’s Style,” but probably doesn’t care for this one, referring to Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge-fund manager turned adviser, “A Trump Aide, a Chinese Firm And A Fear of Tangled Interests.” http://nyti.ms/2jVIVII … WaPo -- the entire front page is about Trump, and another banner headline -- “Supreme Court nominee is Gorsuch … It’s still Justice Kennedy’s court … ‘Originalist’ pick seen as willing to compromise” http://bit.ly/2kpN1tU … N.Y. Post: “BURN IT DOWN!: Dems go full blast to undermine Trump” http://nyp.st/2jusKUo THE BACKSTORY -- GREAT DETAILS -- “How Trump got to yes on Gorsuch,” by Shane Goldmacher, Eliana Johnson and Josh Gerstein: “Behind the scenes, [Donald] Trump settled on [Neil] Gorsuch after only a single in-person interview in Trump Tower. Gorsuch was ushered into the building through a back door on Jan. 14 so he wouldn’t be seen by the press gathered in the lobby. … Trump personally interviewed four Supreme Court finalists, three at his home in New York before he moved to the White House, according to two people involved in the search. ... Only one other person was in the room during Trump’s full interviews with the finalists: White House Counsel Don McGahn, the two officials said. And Trump only met with each of the finalists once before deciding, although he did later speak with some by phone. Trump’s top lieutenants -- Vice President Mike Pence, McGahn, chief of staff Reince Priebus, and chief strategist Stephen Bannon -- also had their own interviews with the four finalists, along with several other candidates in New York.” http://politi.co/2jul6t1 … Video of Trump announcing Gorsuch http://bit.ly/2kqcgfxTHE ANALYSIS -- NYT’s ADAM LIPTAK: “In Judge Neil Gorsuch, an Echo of Scalia in Philosophy and Style”: “Judge Gorsuch ... is an originalist, meaning he tries to interpret the Constitution consistently with the understanding of those who drafted and adopted it. This approach leads him to generally but not uniformly conservative results. … While he has not written extensively on several issues of importance to many conservatives, including gun control and gay rights, Judge Gorsuch has taken strong stands in favor of religious freedom, earning him admiration from the right. …Judge Gorsuch has not hesitated to take stands that critics say have a partisan edge. He has criticized liberals for turning to the courts rather than legislatures to achieve their policy goals, and has called for limiting the power of federal regulators.” http://nyti.ms/2kfP9lg -- WAPO’S ROBERT BARNES: “Trump makes his pick, but it’s still Anthony Kennedy’s Supreme Court”: “Kennedy, 80 and celebrating his 29th year on the court this month, will remain the pivotal member of the court no matter how the warfare between Republicans and Democrats plays out. On almost every big social issue, neither the court’s liberal, Democratic-appointed justices nor Kennedy’s fellow Republican-appointed conservative colleagues can prevail without him. That is why an undercurrent of Trump’s first choice for the court was whether it would soothe Kennedy, making him feel secure enough to retire and let this president choose the person who would succeed him. … “Who better, then, to put Kennedy at ease than one of his former clerks? Kennedy trekked to Denver to swear in his protege Neil Gorsuch on the appeals court 10 years ago. If Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, it would be the first time that a justice has served with a former clerk.” http://wapo.st/2jC6nYb -- NEAL K. KATYAL in the NYT, “Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch”: “I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.” http://nyti.ms/2jTXieo -- A 2002 op-ed in UPI by Gorsuch excoriated the Senate for delaying hearings to appoint John Roberts and Merrick Garland to the U.S. Court of Appeals http://bit.ly/2kqVRXO -- @ShaneGoldmacher: “Gorsuch’s classmate at Harvard Law: A certain gentleman named Barack Obama”WHO WILL HELP GORSUCH -- “Ayotte to lead White House team shepherding Supreme Court nominee,” by WaPo’s Phil Rucker and Ashley Parker: “[Kelly] Ayotte will serve as the nominee’s so-called sherpa, personally introducing the pick to senators and escorting him or her to meetings and the confirmation hearing. … The lead staffer on the nominee’s team will be Makan Delrahim, currently the director of nominations for the White House legislative affairs office. Delrahim will serve as ‘the quarterback,’ in the words of the White House official, overseeing strategy and outreach with the Senate. … “Delrahim will work closely with Mary Elizabeth Taylor, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), where she ran the Senate cloakroom and developed personal relationships with Republican senators. Also involved will be Rick Dearborn, a deputy White House chief of staff and a former chief of staff to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), and Marc Short, the White House’s director of legislative affairs. The communications strategy will be overseen by Ron Bonjean, a longtime Republican strategist who has served as chief of staff to the Senate Republican Conference and as the chief spokesman for former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.).” http://wapo.st/2jUiEbb-- BUZZ: The White House considered several other potential sherpas before settling on Ayotte. Kyle Simmons, former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, was among those who had been discussed. Typically, SCOTUS sherpas are veteran staffers like former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein, who managed multiple Supreme Court and cabinet nominee picks. TEAM OF RIVALS -- “White House tries to course correct after messy travel restriction rollout,” by CNN’s Dana Bash: “According to sources familiar with internal White House conversations, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus will now take more control of the systems dealing with basic functions, like executive orders. The way one source described it: Priebus already technically had the authority, but clearly the staff needed a reminder ‘not to color outside their lines.’ … Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner, two other senior advisers, still have considerable power and influence with Trump. Administration officials say no role has been diminished or expanded but rather existing roles clarified. It is unclear how that will fit in with Priebus exerting more control over White House operations. Additionally, White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway is expected to take more control of the communications strategy.” http://cnn.it/2kQb6XXSCARAMUCCI UNDER FIRE -- NYT A1, “Trump Aide’s Deal With Chinese Firm Raises Fear of Tangled Interests,” by Sharon LaFraniere, Michael Forsythe and Alexandra Stevenson: “A secretive Chinese company with deep ties to the country’s Communist Party has become one of the biggest foreign investors in the United States over the past year, snapping up American firms in a string of multibillion-dollar deals. But it is one of its smaller deals that is apparently stalling the White House career of a top adviser to President Trump. Anthony Scaramucci, a flamboyant former campaign fund-raiser for Mr. Trump whom the president has appointed as the White House liaison to the business community, has been in limbo for more than a week since he agreed to sell his investment firm to a subsidiary of the Chinese conglomerate, HNA Group.“Mr. Scaramucci is on the job but has yet to be sworn in, partly because of concerns about the Jan. 17 deal, according to two administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to publicly discuss personnel matters. It is the second known transaction between a politically connected Chinese company and an incoming White House official. And it is evidence of the unusual confluence of interests between superrich members of the new Trump administration who need to unwind complex financial portfolios to comply with government rules and international firms eager to buy American assets.” http://nyti.ms/2kfNfBd -- “Scaramucci fights to stay in the White House,” by Tara Palmeri: “Reince Priebus and Anthony Scaramucci were sucked into a bizarre episode of infighting Tuesday as the White House chief of staff tried to push Scaramucci out of a promised role as an adviser to President Donald Trump, only to later backtrack.” http://politi.co/2kpXm93PETRAEUS’ WARNING -- ONLY IN PLAYBOOK -- Former CIA Director, retired Gen. David Petraeus plans to warn the House Armed Services Committee this morning that U.S. global alliances are at risk, according to an advance copy of his testimony from someone close to Petraeus. In assessing the threats, Petraeus plans to tell the committee: “Americans should not take the current international order for granted. It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse. This is precisely what some of our adversaries seek to encourage. President Putin, for instance, understands that, while conventional aggression may occasionally enable Russia to grab a bit of land on its periphery, the real center of gravity is the political will of major democratic powers to defend Euro-Atlantic institutions like NATO and the EU.”NEW POLITICO/MORNING CONSULT POLL -- “Poll: 1-in-4 voters believe Trump's vote-fraud claims,” by Jake Sherman: “One in four voters believe President Donald Trump's unsupported claim that millions of votes were illegally cast in the 2016 election, but more people believe that Trump benefited from any electoral malfeasance instead of Hillary Clinton. A new POLITICO/Morning Consult survey showed that 25 percent of registered voters say they agree with Trump that millions of people improperly cast ballots last November. But if the election was subject to voter fraud, 35 percent say it’s more likely any improper votes benefited Trump, and 30 percent say they benefited Clinton. … “Trump’s approval rating is ticking upward toward 50 percent: 49 percent of voters approve of how Trump is handling his job, and 41 percent disapprove. That is more positive than other polls; a 51-percent majority disapproves of Trump in the latest Gallup tracking poll. Even Trump's favorable rating -- 49 percent favorable to 44 percent unfavorable — is a significant departure from other polls, which show Trump viewed more unfavorably.” http://politi.co/2juUSGAOTHER POLL HIGHLIGHTS …-- SEAN SPICER IS WELL KNOWN. 60% say they have seen, read or heard a lot or some of Spicer. He has a 24% favorable rating, 32% unfavorable, 16% have no opinion and 28% don’t know him. -- AS NETANYAHU READIES FOR TRIP TO THE U.S., AMERICANS SAY DON’T MOVE THE EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM. Across the board, our new poll shows that Americans don’t want the U.S. to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. When told of the history of the issue, 41% say to leave the embassy in Tel Aviv and 33% say move the embassy to Jerusalem.THE JUICE -- -- EU ANXIETY -- POSTCARD FROM BRUSSELS: From our POLITICO Europe Playbook colleague Ryan Heath in Brussels: "European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič just stood up in the EU press room and said that the College of European Commissioners discussed at their weekly Cabinet meeting that it and the EU have to choose between the 'inequality, national egoism' displayed by the Trump administration or 'openness, social equality and solidarity' that the defines the EU. Sefcovic said there was 'growing anxiety' about the transatlantic relationship and urged the Trump team to cool it because: 'The U.S. never had a better ally than Europe.'"-- BIDEN LAUNCHES FOUNDATION: The Biden Foundation is launching “to build on Vice President and Dr. Biden’s lifelong commitment to protecting and advancing rights and opportunities of all people,” according to a release off embargo at 5 a.m. The board of the foundation: Former Sen. Ted Kaufman, a longtime Biden adviser; Valerie Biden Owens, the VP’s sister; Mark Gitenstein, a former Biden aide who later was ambassador to Romania; Mark Angelson, a long time Biden adviser; and Jeff Peck of Peck Madigan and Jones. Peck also worked for Biden on the Hill. Louisa Terrell, Sen. Cory Booker’s former chief of staff, a former Facebook lobbyist and FCC aide, will be executive director of the foundation. -- KEY MCCARTHY AIDE TO THE WHITE HOUSE: Ben Howard, who ran the House floor for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), has gone to work for President Donald Trump’s legislative affairs office. This is not only big for Howard, but also for McCarthy, whose stature continues to grow in Trump World. “I can’t begin to express my gratitude for all Ben has done not only for me and my team, but the entire Republican Conference,” McCarthy emails. “Over the years I’ve relied on Ben for both his wisdom and his wit. He’s been an integral part of my senior staff, but President Trump and his team will be well served by Ben as we work to enact the American people’s legislative priorities.”-- SPOTTED: Eric Trump in first class and Don Trump Jr. in coach flying from DCA to LaGuardia on the 10 p.m. American shuttle after the Supreme Court announcement … House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, who is under heat for several of his aides agreeing to sign non-disclosures with the Trump team, chatting with Steve Bannon at the White House Supreme Court announcement Tuesday night … NFIB President and CEO Juanita Duggan at the White House for the SCOTUS announcement.HAPPENING TODAY -- PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff will interview Vice President Mike Pence Wednesday morning in his first sitdown since inauguration. It will air Wednesday night. … Trump is attending an African American History Month listening session. In the afternoon, he is participating in a legislative affairs strategy session.THE RESISTANCE -- GET WITH THE PROGRAM, OR NOT -- “State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump’s Ban Draws 1,000 Signatures,” by NYT’s Jeffrey Gettleman on A1: “It started out in Washington. Then it went to Jakarta. Then across Africa. One version even showed up on Facebook. Within hours, a State Department dissent cable, asserting that President Trump’s executive order to temporarily bar citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries would not make the nation safer, traveled like a chain letter -- or a viral video. The cable wended its way through dozens of American embassies around the world, quickly emerging as one of the broadest protests by American officials against their president’s policies. And it is not over yet. By 4 p.m. on Tuesday, the letter had attracted around 1,000 signatures, State Department officials said, far more than any dissent cable in recent years. It was being delivered to management, and department officials said more diplomats wanted to add their names to it. The State Department has 7,600 Foreign Service officers and 11,000 civil servants.” http://nyti.ms/2jutOr1 -- “Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump,” by WaPo’s Julie Eilperin, Lisa Rein, and Marc Fisher: “Less than two weeks into Trump’s administration, federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives. Some federal employees have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make. ... At a church in Columbia Heights last weekend, dozens of federal workers attended a support group for civil servants seeking a forum to discuss their opposition to the Trump administration. And 180 federal employees have signed up for a workshop next weekend, where experts will offer advice on workers’ rights and how they can express civil disobedience.” http://wapo.st/2jVGN3H COMING ATTRACTIONS -- “Trump administration circulates more draft immigration restrictions, focusing on protecting U.S. jobs,” by WaPo’s Abigail Hauslohner and Janell Ross: “The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport --- when possible -- immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post. A second draft order under consideration calls for a substantial shake-up in the system through which the United States administers immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, with the aim of tightly controlling who enters the country and who can enter the workforce, and reducing the social services burden on U.S. taxpayers.” http://wapo.st/2jup5FU BRIAN FALLON in POLITICO, “Why Trump’s Firing of Sally Yates Should Worry You”: “[F]or Yates, if this week’s events did mark the conclusion of her career at Justice, she can at least depart knowing she was true to herself and to the finest traditions of the institution until the very end. But there’s always the chance her leave from Justice is only temporary. It seems quite likely she will be at the top of any list for attorney general in a future administration—only next time, on a full-time basis.” http://politi.co/2kqJOK5 WHAT THE HILL IS READING -- “Staffers’ secret work on immigration order rattles the Capitol,” by Rachael Bade: “News that House Judiciary Committee staffers secretly collaborated on Donald Trump’s controversial immigration order reverberated through the Capitol on Tuesday: Democrats denounced the arrangement, the GOP panel stonewalled, and an outside ethics group requested an investigation. And the man most on the hot seat over the unusual arrangement, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, was in full-on cleanup mode. At a private GOP conference meeting, Goodlatte (R-Va.) tried to calm fellow Republicans who were incensed to learn that some of his aides helped craft Trump's immigration directive without telling him or GOP leaders or about it. … Democrats, meanwhile, almost immediately began raising ethical concerns about nondisclosure agreements signed by the Judiciary aides — and questioned whether such work infringes on separation of powers.” http://politi.co/2jUjRiQ-- WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: Several government employees signed a non-disclosure agreement to secretly work on an executive order on immigration for the Trump team. And Goodlatte’s staff -- whose salaries are funded by taxpayer money -- refuses to answer if the chairman approved of this, and why it was allowed.SHOW ME THE MONEY -- “Trump raised $15 million in December,” by Ken Vogel: “President Donald Trump’s reelection efforts are off to a strong start financially, according to Tuesday evening campaign finance reports showing that Trump’s three committees brought in a combined $15 million last month and finished the year with $16 million in the bank. The committees – Trump’s campaign and two joint fundraising vehicles created by the campaign and various Republican Party committees - disbursed nearly $32 million from Nov. 29 through Dec. 31.” http://politi.co/2kPZTH2--TEXT FROM TRUMP – “President Trump took office only 10 days ago and the media has waged a nasty fight every day. Fight back. Donate by the 11:59p deadline: www.bit.ly/2jSqMsN”THE CABINET -- “Treasury secretary nominee’s foreign money links bring new scrutiny,” by CNN’s Phil Mattingly: “In a private interview with committee staff, aides said, Mnuchin acknowledged that his responses to the committee had not, as he had stated, been ‘true, accurate and complete.’ He twice was forced to revise his initial disclosure questionnaire. He stated his role in the entities was ‘inadvertently missed’ during the disclosure process.’” http://cnn.it/2kQrcEh WHAT PELOSI TOLD TAPPER -- CNN’s town hall with the House minority leader -- TAPPER: “You still think you can work with [Trump]?” PELOSI: “Well, I certainly hope so. He’s the president of the United States. And by the way, I told him at the meeting, so I’ll tell you, I said, Mr. President, we have -- I worked, when I had the majority, I was the speaker, I had the gavel, and President George W. Bush was president, we worked with him even though we disagreed on the war in Iraq. What could be worse than that? And privatizing Social Security, we disagreed on those. But we passed some of the most progressive legislation to help poor children, the biggest energy bill in the history of our country. He wanted nuclear; we wanted renewables. We had a big bill. The list goes on. Drugs for HIV-AIDS, all of those kinds of things. So we disagree on certain issues. We respect that he’s the president of the United States. We want to work together. But where we will draw the line is if he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act.”-- FOR YOUR RADAR: Pelosi and Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst will speak at the 132nd Gridiron Club and Foundation dinner on March 4.MOVING ON -- “Strobe Talbott stepping down from Brookings,” by Michael Crowley: “Talbott, a former TIME magazine journalist who became deputy secretary of state under Bill Clinton, has led Brookings for 15 years. He will resign in October. ... He served at the State Department from 1993 to 2001, including seven years as Deputy Secretary of State.” http://politi.co/2kfHLGD … Release http://politi.co/2kUx0IN SCHOCK UPDATE -- @kenvogel: “Ex-Rep. @AaronSchock’s campaign cmte paid a $10k ‘compliance penalty’ to the @USTreasury, & $16k+ in legal fees.” http://bit.ly/2kQ9c9XVALLEY TALK -- “Google’s Eric Schmidt: Trump Administration Will Do ‘Evil Things,’” by BuzzFeed’s William Alden and Nitasha Tiku: “Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google’s parent company, told an audience of Google employees on Thursday that the Trump administration is ‘going to do these evil things as they’ve done in the immigration area and perhaps some others.’ Schmidt’s remarks were made during the company’s weekly meeting at its headquarters in Mountain View, California, on January 26.” http://bzfd.it/2kfQLeU MEMO FROM CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN AND JOHN HARRIS -- “Please join me in offering thanks and congratulations to our colleague, Roger Simon, who is retiring from the business after 42 years of writing columns – 10 of which were for POLITICO. Roger was the first person in this newsroom hired after John Harris joined Matt Wuerker and Ken Vogel from the Capitol Leader gang in late 2006. … In this peevish age, in which combatants seem never to relinquish the self-righteous pose, and the language of politics often is infused with contempt, Roger uses his gift for language for a different cause. He respects politics and its practitioners, even when he is being searingly critical. He is shrewd in assessing character and motive and views politics and the work of government less through an ideological prism than human one. These are real people, often quite powerful, making decisions that affect other real people, often quite powerless.”-- ROGER’S LAST COLUMN: “A majority of one walks away from his keyboard”: “This is the end, my friends. It is time to say goodbye. I realize this is the worst possible time for a political columnist to retire, but what I didn’t realize is that any of you cared. Robert Feder, a famous media writer from Chicago, found out about my retirement a few days ago and I have been flooded with farewells ever since. I have also been flooded -- really, you can read them -- with messages on Facebook and Twitter asking me not to retire. Not now. Not, I’m told, when America ‘needs you.’ I know, I know: It is preposterous. It is laughable. But not to some. “For some, I have been the friend they have never met for more than 40 years. For all those years, my job took me all over the world. My wife and I had precious little time for extended vacations. She stayed behind working at newspapers for 35 years and then running her own editing business. Now she wants to see the world. And I’d like to go with her while I still can.” http://politi.co/2jCde3IMEDIAWATCH -- “White House ices out CNN,” by Hadas Gold: “The White House has refused to send its spokespeople or surrogates onto CNN shows, effectively icing out the network from on-air administration voices. ‘We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda,’ said a White House official, acknowledging that CNN is not such a place, but adding that the ban is not permanent. A CNN reporter, speaking on background, was more blunt: The White House is trying to punish the network and force down its ratings. ‘They’re trying cull CNN from the herd,’ the reporter said. Administration officials are still answering questions from CNN reporters. But administration officials including White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and senior counselor Kellyanne Conway haven't appeared on the network's programming in recent weeks.” http://politi.co/2jVAPje--“Upset in WSJ newsroom over editor’s directive to avoid ‘majority Muslim’ in immigration ban coverage,” by Joe Pompeo: “[Gerry] Baker conveyed the message in an internal email Monday night, responding to a breaking news story about Trump’s firing of Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates for refusing to defend the executive order temporarily barring citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia from entering the country. ‘Can we stop saying “seven majority Muslim countries”? It’s very loaded,’ Baker wrote in an email to editors obtained by POLITICO. ... ‘Would be less loaded to say “seven countries the US has designated as being states that pose significant or elevated risks of terrorism.”” http://politi.co/2jC3gzg --“Fox News Tops Cable News Ratings for 15 Straight Years With January Win,” by The Wrap’s Brian Flood: http://bit.ly/2jC70kA KATY TUR PROFILE -- “Taunted by Trump, ‘Little Katy’ stood her ground. And became a star because of it,” by WaPo’s Paul Farhi: “Trump’s attacks on [Megyn] Kelly may have had a higher profile, but few reporters took as much flak from the future president as Tur. … Tur’s reaction to the tumult was like that during her first confrontations in New Hampshire and in Trump Tower. She stood her ground. She didn’t fire back. She continued reporting. Now she smiles at the memory, as composed as a sonnet. ‘Generally, I find the hotter the temperature, the cooler I am,’ she says. ‘It’s times of relative calm and ease that I start to wind myself up.’” http://wapo.st/2kOGlWASPOTTED -- Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump eating at RPM Italian Monday night. They also took a jog Saturday with their security detail on the trails on Rock Creek Parkway. OUT AND ABOUT -- Democratic campaign hands gathered last night to celebrate former Howard Dean campaign manager and longtime political strategist, Rick Ridder, and his new book at the Hawk ‘n Dove. Ridder’s book “Looking for Votes in All the Wrong Places: Tales and Rules from the Campaign Trail” draws from his decades leading campaigns and the party featured friends old and new. $16.99 on Amazon http://amzn.to/2jCacg1 SPOTTED mingling in the crowd: Stephanie Schriock and Jess O’Connell from EMILY’s List, Colorado Reps. Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter, Mark Putnam, the DSCC’s Lauren Passalacqua, Andrew Piatt, Danny Kazin, Jay Marlin, Rich Pelletier, Mark Blumenthal, Glen Totten, and Amy Pritchard. Also spotted: Rick’s proud daughter and DCCC alum Jenn Ridder. WELCOME TO THE WORLD -- Doug Calidas, legislative counsel for Sen. Joe Manchin III and Wharton and Duke Law alum, and Katie Calidas, a designer for an advertising agency and Parsons alum, on Sunday at 12:05 a.m. welcomed William Kristopher Calidas, 7 pounds, 11 ounces, 21 inches. “Mother and baby are doing great and came home from the hospital Monday.” Pic http://bit.ly/2jBYYYW TRANSITIONS -- Victoria Glynn, former deputy press secretary at the Veterans Affairs Department, has joined Rep. Henry Cuellar’s (D-Texas) office as communications director. … My Brother’s Keeper Alliance (MBK Alliance) has elected former Obama administration official Broderick D. Johnson as chairman of the board of directors effective yesterday.NSC DEPARTURE LOUNGE -- Adam Strickler departs the NSC today after nine years of service to four National Security Advisers, most recently Ambassador Susan Rice. He plans to take some time off with Lauren and Toby. (h/t Suitestaff44)BIRTHDAYS OF THE DAY: Jake Siewert, head of corporate comms at Goldman Sachs, father of four, and Bill Clinton alumnus, celebrating with a “pancake breakfast at my kids’ school, a full day’s work, and dinner with my wife near our apartment” -- read his Playbook Plus Q&A: http://politi.co/2kQnzuV … ABC News’ Ali Dukakis, celebrating with friends and co-workers likely at Edgar -- Q&A: http://politi.co/2kUk1qP ... BuzzFeed White House correspondent Adrian Carrasquillo, celebrating with “operatives, reporters, BuzzFeed colleagues and friends” on Friday at Hawthorne -- Q&A: http://politi.co/2kpVEoiBIRTHDAYS: CAA’s Michael Kives ... Liz Breckenridge of Sen. Casey’s office and is the pride of Chesterfield, Mo. … Hudson Lee (Carol Lee’s son) is 4 ... Fred Barnes is 74 ... Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) is 73 ... Jamie Radice, head of comms and public policy at Shift Technologies, and a McAuliffe and HRC 2008 campaign alum ... Christine Halloran ... Marc Elias of Perkins Coie (h/ts Jon Haber) … Mara Sloan … Mat Lapinski, Jeff Kimbell protégé and EVP of Crossroads Strategies (h/t Krueger) ... Matt Moon, EVP at Delve DC and a Rick Scott and RNC alum ... Politico’s Andrew Friedman (h/t wife Taylor) ... Ashley Hicks, manager of corporate alliances at USO and a Politico alum ... Joseph Jones, pride of Des Moines and beloved friend of ACYPL ... Miguel Ayala, SBA and Hillary campaign alum, is 38 ... L.A. Dodgers President and CEO Stan Kasten, the pride of Lakewood, N.J., is 65 ... David Thomas of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti … Alexa Kissinger, Obama White House and ‘12 alum, now 2L at Harvard Law School (h/t Gareth Rhodes) ... Dan Arbell, 25-year veteran of the Israeli foreign service, now a scholar-in-residence at AU ... Tara Brown, Mid-Atlantic regional director for AIPAC (h/ts Jewish Insider) ... Jordyn Phelps, ABC News’ superstar White House producer (h/ts Jonathan Karl and Arlette Saenz) ... ABC News’ Erin Dooley (h/t Arlette) ... ... Tara McGowan, digital director at Priorities USA … Willa Prescott, the pride of Omaha and Rep. Tom O’Halleran’s scheduler and director of operations (h/t Zac Andrews) ... Bloomberg News U.S. economy reporter Michelle Jamrisko -- her Twitter bio: “I like to tell my stories with pictures and numbers” (h/t Ben Chang) ... “Meet the Press” producer Natalie Cucchiara, celebrating half of the day at 30 Rock and half of the day in D.C. (h/t Olivia Petersen) ... Locust Street Group founding partner David Barnhart (h/t Ben Jenkins) ... Andrew Oberlander ... Emmett McGroarty, education director at American Principles Project ... CBS News’ Alana Anyse ... Uber’s Alex Luzi ... David Redl, counsel for the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee ... Susan Coll, director of events and programs at Politics & Prose ... Catherine Kim, executive editor at NBC News digital ... Maria Reppas ... Dan Chmielewski ... Josh Nelson, deputy political director of CREDO Mobile ... Alex Otwell of Cvent ... Karl Bach ... Bill Sweeney, former deputy DNC chair and now president and CEO at International Foundation for Electoral Systems ... Carrie Goux … Luke Peterson ... Kelly Collins ... Zachary Tumin, deputy commissioner of strategic initiatives at NYPD ... Emily Laird ... Jordan Lillie … Michael Frias … Karl Bach, Human Rights Campaign alum … Princess Stephanie of Monaco is 52 ... Lisa Marie Presley is 49 ... Pauly Shore is 49 ... Harry Styles (One Direction) is 23 (h/ts AP)
One of the oddities of the whole Trump/Putin/CIA affair is that some on the left are sounding not all that different from Donald Trump. That is, there is some sympathy for the idea that maybe the United States should try some kind of entente with Vladimir Putin ― that’s he’s not such a bad fellow. This is more than a little strange, since it puts well known leftwing defenders of Putin’s Russia, such as emeritus Princeton Professor and Nation Magazine contributor Stephen Cohen, in roughly the same camp with Trump apologists. My favorite recent example was an op-ed by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, one of the most rightwing members of Congress. After insisting that Putin had nothing to deal with flipping the U.S. election, Rohrabacher added: “As far as dealing with the Russians, FDR, Churchill and Truman cooperated with Stalin to defeat Hitler. In this generation, we need that same sort of cooperation with Putin to eradicate the Islamic State. We may even work with him to deal with emerging challenges from Iran and China.” Ah, yes, a former leader of the Young Americans for Freedom warmly invoking Stalin. You can imagine Rohrabacher’s reaction if, say, Barack Obama had been playing footsie with Putin. But it’s worth asking whether a different view of Putin and the U.S. national interest is entirely crazy. Some leftwing Americans seem to have a more indulgent view of Putin than the foreign policy mainstream on several grounds, which range from delusional to worth considering on the merits. In part, this may be a lefty habit of fondness for Russia that dates to the period before communism collapsed. But it also reflects a different view of geo-politics and the national interest. Some of the more dubious arguments include these: It’s not definitively proven that it was Russia that hacked the DNC. (Come, on, people, of course it is.) Yes, Russian intelligence has done some nasty stuff, but so has the CIA. Look at all the elections overseas that the US has flipped. Is the CIA now our friend? (Okay, fair point, but we still get to defend our own democracy from foreign mischief.) Russia is not all that different from the U.S. It has an opposition press, elections, free dissent, and so on, and the U.S. is far from a perfect democracy. (Sorry, but in the U.S., the government doesn’t poison you for disloyalty to the regime, and the opposition actually gets to win elections. Putin is a thug.) Three other arguments at least require serious engagement: Russia has nuclear weapons roughly equal to our own. Don’t we want a new détente rather than a new arms race? (Sure we do, but it’s Trump who is threatening a new nuclear buildup. Putin may soon have buyer’s remorse.) We may not love Putin, but there are in fact areas of common interest where the US and Russia could be working together, such as defeating ISIS. Look at Syria, where US policy was floundering as hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. It took Russia to bring about a peace. (Yes, U.S. policy was a failure, but Putin’s puppet, Assad, made a desert and called it peace. From a Kissingerian, “realist” viewpoint, a stable, brutal, Saddam-style dictatorship may have been the best outcome available, but Syria is now one of the best recruiting posters for ISIS) The U.S. brought Putin’s meddling on itself, by squeezing post-Soviet Russia with the enlargement of NATO and intervening in Ukraine. Russia has always feared encirclement on its near borders. It’s only prudent to acknowledge that Russia as a great power has a legitimate sphere of influence. (I don’t buy this, but I don’t quite reject it out of hand.) Putin and his defenders have contended that as part of the deal to reunify Germany in 1990, a commitment was made to then Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev that the U.S. would not expand NATO. Under Clinton, and his Czech-born Secretary of State Madeline Albright, this commitment was reversed. But Gorbachev himself has challenged that interpretation, saying that the deal extended only to stationing of troops in the former East Germany. One can argue about how Russia might have squeezed Eastern Europe and the Baltics in the absence of NATO, but the evidence from Ukraine (not a NATO member) is not exactly reassuring. On the other hand, the U.S. foreign policy establishment is in fact divided on how hard a line to take with Putin, and Putin’s particular aminus against Hillary Clinton reflects the fact that she has been one of the hardest liners. Within the Obama Administration, there were well-documented disputes between the State Department and the Pentagon over how closely to cooperate with Putin in trying to broker a cease fire in Syria. David Warsh, whose blog, economic principals, usually deals more with economic topics, recently posted an extensive quote from New York Times White House correspondent Mark Landler’s recent book, Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power (Random House 2016). The book was reported and written at a time when presumed Democratic nominee Clinton was seeking to establish herself more emphatically as a foreign policy hawk. Landler reports how Clinton and Obama tangled over whether and how to squeeze Putin. Consider this extract posted by Warsh, recounting a White House dinner where Obama and a dozen foreign policy experts are discussing whether to supply Ukrainian forces the fighting Russia with antitank missiles: As the second hour began, Obama… threw down a startling gauntlet. “Will somebody tell me, What’s the American stake in Ukraine?” he asked he his guests. Strobe Talbott [Deputy Secretary of State for seven years under President Clinton], who spent much of his professional life studying the Soviet threat during the Cold War, was slack-jawed. Preserving the territorial integrity of states liberated from the Soviet Union was an article in faith in Washington, at least for those of Clinton’s generation, who had watched the Soviets invade Hungary in 1956. Talbott argued that the West couldn’t simply stand by while Russia had its way with one of its neighbors. Stephen Hadley, who had been George W. Bush’s national adviser, echoed him. “Well, I see it somewhat differently than you do,” Obama replied. “My concern is it will be a provocation and it’ll trigger a Russian escalation that we’re not prepared to match.” That was a legitimate concern, Talbott granted, but not a reason to give Russia a free pass. “Having known Hillary for a long time,” he told me [Landler wrote],”I’m pretty sure she would have seen the invasion of Ukraine in a different way, mainly as a threat to the peace of Europe.” Subsequently, Clinton made clear that she would take a tougher line against the Russians, and warmly praised Talbott. Conclusion 1: You get why Putin was so determined to keep Clinton from the White House. Conclusion 2: There is indeed more than one way to deal with the Russians. Yet given Trump’s bizarre temperament, his impatience with subtleties, and the fact that he plainly owes Putin one, he is about the last person in the world whom we can trust to devised a more nuanced policy towards Russia that still protects the U.S. national interest. Conclusion 3: Roosevelt’s alliance with Stalin made sense at the time. Not so an alliance of American progressives with Trump. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and professor at Brandeis University’s Heller School. His latest book is Debtors’ Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility. Like Robert Kuttner on Facebook. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
От редакции: Портал Terra America начинает исследование одного из старейших и наиболее влиятельных мозговых центров США – Института Брукингса. Выбор на него пал неслучайно, и неслучайно мы подробно разобрали на нашем сайте один из докладов Института в декабре прошлого года. Сегодня считается, что если Хиллари Клинтон включится в президентскую гонку, то именно эта «фабрика мысли» будет снабжать ее программами и идеями. Для граждан нашей страны эта организация интересна еще и тем, что ее руководитель, Строуб Тэлботт (замгоссекретаря США в 1994-2001 годах) является общепризнанным на Западе специалистом по России, свободно говорит по-русски и прекрасно разбирается в политической кухне по обе стороны Атлантики. Сегодня мы предлагаем вниманию наших читателей первую, вводную статью цикла, посвященного Brookings Institute, написанную Константином Аршиным. Обычно мы называем think tank’и мозговыми центрами, но в данном случае решили сохранить авторское – «трест». * * * В 2008 году Филадельфийский Институт внешнеполитических исследований подвел итог своей многолетней программы исследований «Мозговые тресты и программы по развитию гражданского общества». В ходе исследования было изучено 5080 мозговых трестов по всему миру, из которых 1776 мозговых трестов были сугубо американскими. Интересно, что в соответствии с данными исследования 91% из обследованных мозговых трестов возникли после 1951 года. Впрочем, в США, которым в общем-то и относят сам факт возникновения феномена мозговых трестов, первые представители аналитических центров, работающих по заказу Правительства США или частных корпораций, возникли еще в начале XX столетия. И те из них, что дожили до сегодняшнего дня, уже готовятся праздновать столетний юбилей. Один из таких мозговых трестов долгожителей – «Институт Брукингса», мозговой трест, чья история оказалась крепко переплетена и практически неотделима от истории внешней политики Соединенных Штатов. Мозговой трест «Институт Брукингса» был основан в 1916 году, впрочем это имя он получил несколько позднее. В момент своего создания он именовался «Институт правительственных исследований», а цель, которую поставили перед новой институцией его создатели, состояла ни много, ни мало в создании эффективной гражданской службы и «научном» изучении деятельности правительства. Столь амбициозные задачи родились из потребности дня. Дело в том, что основатель мозгового треста Роберт С. Брукингс, талантливый бизнесмен, в период I Мировой войны работал в администрации президента США Вудро Вильсона в качестве члена Совета по военной промышленности и председателя Комитета по замораживанию цен. Именно здесь Брукингс осознал, насколько гражданской службе Соединенных Штатов не хватает грамотных управленцев и экономистов. Впрочем, у службы Брукингса в администрации Вудро Вильсона была и другая сторона. С момента своего создание детище предпринимателя оказалось связано тесными узами с Демократической партией. В 1922 году Роберт Брукингс основал «Институт экономики», а в 1924 году «Высшую школу Роберта Брукингса». В 1927 году все три институции были объединены в «Институт Брукингса», которому было суждено превратиться в один из крупнейших мозговых трестов Соединенных Штатов и всего мира. Более того, многие эксперты полагают, что именно «Институт Бругингса» оказывает наибольшее воздействие на государственную политику США, чему есть ряд оснований. Например, в 1921 году эксперты «Института Брукингса» участвовали в создании первого в истории США Бюро по бюджету, в задачи которого входило планирование финансовых расходов Правительства. Впрочем, это была только первая ласточка, которую президент Уоррен Хардинг назвал «величайшей реформой правительства с момента учреждения республики». Дальше больше, в период Второй мировой войны Лео Пасловски, эксперт «Института Брукингса» и сотрудник Государственного департамента, участвовал в создании ООН, подготовив для президента Франклина Рузвельта, соответствующий доклад, в котором были шаги по созданию подобного рода международного объединения. Кроме того, тот же Пасловски, уже в послевоенный период входил в группу экспертов «Института Брукингса», перед которыми была поставлена задача по экспертному сопровождению «Плана Маршалла». Необходимо, кстати, отметить, что к работе над «Планом Маршалла» представителей Института привлек председатель сенатского комитета по международным отношениям сенатор-республиканец Артур Ванденберг, специально попросивший у тогдашнего президента «Института Брукингса» Гарольда Моултона помощи. Буквально в течение двух недель после получения запроса из сената, Институт 22 января 1948 года представил 20-страничный доклад, в котором содержалось 8 рекомендаций по структуре, задачам и оперативной реализации «Плана Маршалла», который был официально назван «Программа восстановления Европы». Среди рекомендаций Института содержалось требование создания специального правительственного агентства, в чьи задачи входила бы координация усилий по восстановлению разрушенной экономики Европы. Причем глава этого агентства, по мысли экспертов, должен был иметь право напрямую обращаться к президенту Трумену. Интересно, что несколько десятилетий спустя другой представитель «Института Брукингса» Пол Лайт, возглавлявший группу исследователей программы «Величайшие достижения Федерального правительства», включил в число этих достижений «План Маршалла». Также нельзя не отметить причастность «Института Брукингса» к двум наиболее значимым событиям политической истории США середины XX столетия – избрания Джона Ф. Кеннеди на пост Президента США и Уотергейтскому скандалу. Как известно, Джон Кеннеди, кандидат от Демократической партии на выборах 1960 года, отнюдь не рассматривался в качестве фаворита – слишком молод, слишком ирландец, наконец католик. Только в ходе официальных президентских дебатов, которые, кстати, проходили впервые, ему удалось убедить публику в том, что именно он будет лучшим президентом, чем баллотировавшийся от Республиканской партии Ричард Никсон. Не в последнюю очередь Кеннеди удалось убедить американцев в своем превосходстве благодаря изданной незадолго до выборов книге эксперта «Института Брукингса» Лорин Генри «Presidential Transitions», в которой эксперт описал наиболее безболезненные формы трансформации администрации в целях ее приспособления к новым вызовам. Что касается Уотергейтского скандала, то одна из расхожих версий гласит, будто бы проникновение в офис Демократической партии было предотвращено охранником «Института Брукингса» Родриком Уорвиком, который задержал двоих человек, один из которых был бывшим сотрудником того же «Института Брукингса», Лесли Гельбом, в тот момент, когда они пытались проникнуть в здание отеля «Уотергейт» теплым вечером 17 июня 1971 года. Таким образом, можно констатировать, что несмотря на завещанное создателем «Института Брукингса» Робертом Брукингсом указание на необходимость «освободить основу всей деятельности Института Брукингса составляет убежденность в необходимости точного и беспристрастного подхода к формулированию и изучению вопросов, а также в представлении идей без какой-либо идеологии», созданная им институция практически всю историю своего существования была политически ангажированной одной из политических сил США – Демократической партией. Особенно заметно это стало в последнее десятилетие, когда во главе «Института Брукингса» встал Строуб Тэлботт, личный друг Билла Клинтона и бессменный заместитель государственного секретаря в период его президентства. Важно отметить, что именно Тэлботт, назначенный курировать российско-американские отношения, во многом сформировал тот геополитический ландшафт, с которым столкнулась Российская Федерация в 2000 годах. Занятно, но именно в период президентства Тэлботта в «Институте Брукингса» в рамках академических штудий в 2003 году была издана книга Фионы Хилл и Клиффорда Гэдди «Сибирское проклятье». В книге утверждаются, что Сибирь, в силу особенностей климата, не является территорией, на которой рентабельно развивать производство. Как следствие, ее необходимо избавить от лишнего населения, просто переселив его на более теплые территории, а основные работы вести вахтовым методом. Наделавшая много шума книга была тепло встречена такими одиозными «друзьями» России как бывший член Совета по национальной безопасности США Ричард Пайпс и бывший помощник президента США по национальной безопасности 3бигнев Бжезинский. Кстати, оба симпатизируют демократам. На этом нападки «Института Брукингса» на Россию и ее руководство не прекратились. В 2006 году научный сотрудник Института Клиффорд Гэдди заявил, что в тексте диссертации на соискание учёной степени кандидата экономических наук президент Российской Федерации Владимир Путин допустил некорректное цитирование ряда источников, не сделав на них ссылок. Иными словами, обвинил президента России в плагиате. Впрочем, и сам Строуб Тэлботт не отличался особой щепетильностью. В 2003 году была издана его книга «Рука России. Воспоминания о президентской дипломатии», в которой он на примере различных сюжетов из российско-американских отношений продемонстрировал, как Соединенные Штаты добивались своих целей в отношениях с Российской Федерацией. По сути дела «Рука России» – это приговор отечественной дипломатии 1990-х годов, поскольку Тэлботт на нескольких сотнях страниц описывает как они и тогдашнее российское руководство «сдавали» интересы своей страны. Кстати, необходимо отметить, что работы эти появились в период президентства Джорджа Буша-младшего, когда отношения между Россией и США стали разворачиваться в иной плоскости, нежели при Билле Клинтоне, превратившись из отношений хозяина и подчиненного, в отношения партнеров, пусть не равных по статусу, но пользующихся взаимным уважением. В этот же период Тэлботт превращает Институт в инкубатор для будущих лидеров Демократической партии. Безусловно «Институт Брукингса» всегда был связан с правящей элитой, но именно в период руководства Тэлботта количество «ученых-практиков», тех, научных работников, «которые периодически занимают должности в органах государственной власти, где могут на практике проверить свои научные выводы», а также бывших государственных служащих, «которые приходят в Институт Брукингса после определенного срока работы на государственной службе» стало расти. Как писал сам Тэлботт в статье «Институт Брукингса. Как работает мозговой трест»: «Более десяти “ученых-практиков” Института Брукингса работали в Государственном департаменте или в Совете национальной безопасности, включая Джеймса Стейнберга, вице-президента и директора Программы внешнеполитических исследований Института Брукингса (бывшего заместителя помощника президента по вопросам национальной безопасности и директора отдела политического планирования в Государственном департаменте), Хельмута Зонненфельдта (члена Совета национальной безопасности в администрации Ричарда Никсона и бывшего руководителя исследовательского отдела, занимавшегося Советским Союзом и странами Восточной Европы, в Государственном департаменте) и Мартина Индика, директора нашего Центра ближневосточной политики имени Сабана (ранее Индик занимал должность помощника Государственного секретаря по ближневосточным делам и дважды был послом США в Израиле». Поэтому неудивительно, что как только демократы сменили республиканцев из Института Брукингса начался настоящий исход на государственную службу, в частности в Государственный департамент, который возглавила жена лучшего друга Тэлботта – Хиллари Клинтон. «Кадровый резерв» Демократической партии, как неофициально называют «Институт Брукингса» оправдал свое прозвище. Впрочем, его история еще не закончена. Он продолжает жить и развиваться. И вероятно еще не одно поколение политической элиты Соединенных Штатов пройдет через его стены. Единственное с чем можно поспорить, так это с утверждением Строуба Тэлботта, что неизменным остался завещаный Робертом Брукингсон «внепартийный, ориентированный исключительно на разработку политики метод исследования». «Институт Брукингса» – это давно уже чисто партийный проект, распространяющий вполне определенную идеологию. Идеологию Демократической партии США. Константин Аршин