I finally earned the honor of being banned from The National Interest discussion boards for pointing out obvious--utter incompetence, including that of Dmitri Simes, in the issues related to Russia. It is difficult to deny the history of amateurish journalism, name dropping and reducing the outlet to the Top-5 whatever they find "hot" at the moment, I guess Top-5 Kardashian moments or Top-5 Cutest Dogs are coming. I usually do not go to TNI that often, nor do I post there often either, especially as of late but my reaction to Simes' article
was simple. I simply asked those "strategists" (Simes included) to stop pretending that they know or understand anything when it comes to Russia's military-political developments. They are, in fact, utterly unqualified to pass any judgment on that. I just pointed that out, including the fact that US has NO strategy. The reaction was interesting.
I was contemplating a bit what to write on that when some people sent me the link to this superb piece by Michael Brenner:
This saves me the work of explaining the sewer level at which this whole US Russia "expert" community is.
"The swift Russian intervention into Syria
exacerbates every one of the contradictory elements in Washington’s
various, unintegrated Middle East policies. That is one reason for the
unexpected moves by Putin are deeply unsettling. They not only add a
major variable, but that factor also involves a self-willed player ready
and able to take initiatives which are not predictable or easy to
counter. An already fluid field of action, thereby, is rendered even
more turbulent by orders of magnitude. Another, related reason is that
since the United States has no comprehensive strategy, the repercussions
of the Russian actions, military and political, are generating a
piecemeal reaction that finds it difficult to gain any intellectual or
diplomatic traction in each policy sphere. Theoretically, these
developments should highlight the need for such an overarching strategy
by underscoring the costs of not having one. There is no evidence,
though, of that happening within the Obama administration – or within
the American foreign policy community generally. Why? In addition to
the manifest lack of aptitude for such an undertaking, the kinds of
conceptual adjustments indicated by the Russian intervention touch on
highly sensitive questions of America’s status and mission in the world
which its political elite is unprepared to engage."(c)
Couldn't have said better myself. This, plus the obvious fact that no number of emigres, such as Simes and current sources they have in Russia (that is mostly in the same old ultra-liberal Moscow Parnassus), will change a simpe fact of Russia-American relations--American side simply has NO meaningful knowledge of Russia. So, here I am, banned and in exile;-), but this still does not change the simple fact that no person of real decision-making position or power in Russia will communicate anything of value or substance (except for the media-cliches and general policy statements) to any Western "analysts" or "journalist". It is over, the West committed cultural suicide in Russia. So, in conclusion, Brenner again:
"These compounded frustrations lie
behind the incandescent outrage at Russia’s temerity by American
officials and the entire commentariat. The latter category includes
highly regarded veteran “Sovietologists” like Strobe Talbott (former
high official and now head of the Brookings Institution) and David
Remnick (author of excellent books on the break-up of the Soviet Union
and now editor of The New Yorker) whose supposed intimate
knowledge of Russia is belied by the tenor of their emotional anti-Putin
diatribes at once simplistic and at variance with the facts. Americans
are reacting erratically to omens of the country’s mortality as global
hegemon.
One never should underestimate the
extent to which belief in American exceptionalism/superiority sustains
collective and individual self-esteem."
