Sad, Sad News.

One of the last representatives of America's true intellect and knowledge, a gentleman and a real scholar. Stephen Cohen, RIP. I can only refer you all to a profound eulogy by Andrei Raevsky at his blog. 2020 continues with its deadly harvest. 

Dear friends,

It is with immense sadness that I have to report that Stephen F. Cohen passed away yesterday in his home in Manhattan at the age of 81. There are a few media outlets who have already reported this.  Most of them discuss Stephen F. Cohen’s political ideas and his books, which is normal since he was a historian of the Soviet Union.  But I won’t do that here. What I want to say about Cohen is something very different. First, he was a man of immense kindness and humility.  Second, he was a man of total intellectual honesty.  I can’t say that Cohen and I had the same ideas or the same reading of history, though in many cases we did, but here is what I found so beautiful in this man: unlike most of his contemporaries, Cohen was not an ideologue, he did not expect everybody to agree with him, and he himself did not vet people for ideological purity before offering them his friendship. Even though it is impossible to squeeze a man of such immense intellect and honesty into any one single ideological category, I would say that Stephen Cohen was a REAL liberal, in the original, and noble, meaning of this word.

I agree with Andrei (The Saker), we lost a giant. Sad day.

Stephen Cohen Is Late. We Are Past The Turning Point.

I stumbled recently on Stephen Cohen's good and sensible interview to The Grayzone. It is an interview of a competent Russia scholar who does know subject but the core, the central point of this interview is not just about outright imbecility of American "elites", such as ignoramus Strobe Talbott (surprisingly a student of Isaiah Berlin who abhorred Talbott's policies towards Russia in 1990s), but the main point, correctly emphasized by Cohen, starts at a minute 18. 

If Russia is the West? Was Russia pushed away by the West to eventually form alliance with China? Here is the problem--the interview is dated by 24 September this year. If you may recall, a week after that Putin drops a bomb--Russia helps China to build her own Missile Attack Early warning System (SPRN). As I already stated then, this stunning and unprecedented fact throws all Western views, not that they ever were reality-based, on Russia-China arrangements in a total disarray not only by he fact of a demonstration of Russia's military-technological superiority once one considers what such a system actually is, but in terms of the mutual status of Russia and China in this duopoly. That blew, as I stated not for once, Western wet dreams of Russia being a "junior" partner in such a de facto alliance out of the water. 

But building China's SPRN is the most telling sign of Russia making her civilizational choice and moving away from the West. One does not build only the third system of this power and capability in the world without a full commitment to a full fledged alliance. This, plus, of course, Russia having a vested interest in China having such a system for the sake of averting a possible war between the United States and China with Russia not being able to sit this one out. In essence, Russia defends herself by defending China this way. That's alliance, my friends, in substance, if not form. It was, in the end, West's, not Russia's choice and it is true today--Russia is not West, not modern nominal West anyway, and she, it seems, is back on her very own and unique civilizational journey, the final frontier of which is probably not even on this planet.  We are past the turning point. 

Stephen Cohen Makes Mistake(s).

I do follow Stephen Cohen's thoughts on international relations in general, and Russian-American relations in particular, but while having respect for his courageous and honest position on the subject, it doesn't mean that I agree on everything with him. His latest piece in The Nation with the title Will US Elites Give Détente With Russia a Chance? is not exactly an exercise in precision forecasting. To start with the question in the title, the answer is extremely simple: Absolutely NOT. Detente between the United States and Russia is impossible in principle at this stage for a number of an extremely important reasons ranging from the America's loss of military-technological parity and overall decline, both relative to others and in absolute terms, of the main instrument of American foreign policy, her military, to a near catastrophic economic outlook for the United States. This major, in fact, defining military-technological factor of the American thinking eludes Stephen Cohen, as it does overwhelming majority of American political scientists. And then, of course, there is a growing recognition within Russia of her own role of an emerging power pole and the center of global influence. Finally, did anyone take a stock of US "elites" recently? The decline, even compared to 1980s, of intellectual level is astonishing. Isn't rather sorry present state of the United States a good indicator of those "elites" quality, or, rather, lack thereof? Remaining American common sense realists (and even this term requires serious elaborations) and patriots are literally removed to the fringes of political power and have very little say in a disastrous US foreign policy. Did Stephen Cohen ask himself lately when was the last time the US won any war?

Now we come to this ever important economic issue. Make no mistake, Russia's economic problems are by no means something to be sneezed at, not at all. But it also has to be understood that typical Western monetarist criteria (Cohen, being namely American scholar hardly operates far beyond those criteria) give an extremely distorted picture of Russian economy. Cohen makes an assertion:

Putin’s domestic problem, on the other hand, is economic and social. Russia’s annual growth rate is barely 2 percent, real wages are declining, popular protests against officialdom’s historically endemic corruption are on the rise, and Putin’s approval rating, while still high, is declining. A public dispute between two of Putin’s advisers has broken out over what to do. On the one side is Alexei Kudrin, the leading monetarist who has long warned against using billions of dollars in Russia’s “rainy day” funds to spur investment and economic growth. On the other is Sergei Glaziev, a kind of Keynesian, FDR New Dealer who has no less persistently urged investing these funds in new domestic infrastructure that would, he argues, result in rapid economic growth.    

It is a "loaded" statement, very recognizably affected by Moscow's rumor mill, but let's start with pointing out what is going on here:

1. This "growth" thing. Here is World Bank's assessment:

Real GDP growth in Russia surpassed expectations in 2018, reaching 2.3 percent, mostly due to oneoff effects of energy construction. Forecasted growth of 1.2 percent in 2019 and 1.8 percent in 2020 and 2021 reflects a more modest outlook.Russia’s macro-fiscal buffers remain strong, with fiscal surpluses across all tiers of government and low public-debt levels. When compared to advanced economies, Russia spends less on health and education. Rebalancing in favor of these categories could improve the overall efficiency of public spending. Short-term inflationary risks have abated, with the Bank of Russia signaling a return to a neutral policy rate. Lending activity is recovering, but the banking sector remains afflicted with high concentration and state dominance. Having eased slightly, the poverty rate remains in double digits with many households close to the poverty line and lacking formal employment. Informal employment is rising in the face of close-to-zero net job creation by medium-sized and large formal enterprises.

Did you catch it? Not enough lending for GDP growth, which is, in normal economies, is a sign of, well...look at the US and her corporate debt. 

U.S. corporate debt is now at an all-time high of over 45% of GDP, which is even worse than the levels reached during the Dot-com bubble and U.S. housing and credit bubble: 

So, Judging Russia using criteria which provide, mostly virtual, "growth" of Western economies, is akin to judging Russia's military power in Power Projection Forces, which Russia not only doesn't need but will have a fairly easy time defending (that is to say sinking) against them.  

Now, let's take a look at, indeed, the real growth which is defined by, and you have guessed it already, industrial and agricultural fields primarily--the fact denial of which is in the foundation of not only lousy, to put it mildly Western forecasts and "intelligence" on Russia, but also in the foundation of, say, American delusion about true size and capability of own economy. Here is a verified data (from Russia herself) on manufacturing following a dip in January 2019.

This is what really defines an actual state of economy and while still represented in monetary (Ruble) units one requires a serious review of overall industrial and agricultural development to have a real feel of economic trends. Yes, there are issues with stagnating wages, yes, there are also issues with poverty, but that is precisely a leftover from monetary policies which kept inflation in check while Russia remains under the unprecedented economic sanctions. And here Cohen makes a huge mistake, Russia's presidential elections were not about electing just President, they were about electing a Commander in Chief first and foremost. One has to keep in mind this crucial distinction.

2. Putin's ratings do not decline, in fact, they remain steady and high when the question of "do you approve of President's work" is asked.

MOSCOW, May 31. /TASS/. The approval level of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s performance among Russians has risen by almost three points over the past 5 months (January - May) to reach a 64.5 percent approval rating, according to a poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center and published on its official website. "In the period between January and May 2019, Vladimir Putin’s approval rating rose from 61.7% to 64.5%, whereas Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s approval rating score increased from 34.3% to 37.4%," the research center reports.

Opinions of American pollsters are not welcomed--they are as fake as US main stream news organizations. In fact, as I stated not for once, most of information on Russia circulating today in the West, unless in is obtained and explained by serious intelligence-analytical organizations (and even then...), is basically a trash. Data provided by Russian media and statistical institutions, even by officially registered as "Foreign Agent" Levada Center (most of Russian "business" media should be also registered as such) proved to be much more reliable and truthful. In terms of identifying short and long trends, for sure. 

3. In this case I also don't get the significance of Cohen elaborating on supposedly "breaking out" of a TWO DECADE+ long discussion between Kurdrin and Glaziev. What's so significant about this massive public discussion in Russia, which is represented widely in media, between Western monetarists and Keynesian-leaning economists? While this discussion, which is not even a news, continues, Russian state returned under own control more than 70 percent of strategic industries and most resources. So, what's so significant about Kudrin saying something? Everybody in Russia knows what he is going to say, but instead of wasting time on his beaten to death arguments, one should really pay attention to how Russia ignored recent Davos forum and why SPIEF grows in global importance. I do understand frustration of "advanced" liberal Russian office plankton and hipster hamsters with Putin, after all they have huge opinion about their very mediocre abilities, but their "protestations" have little effect on a massive shift of Russia away form liberal policies. Russia has money today, it is just the decision on how to open this stream into economy without dis-balancing fairly well-established financial indices, is not made yet.    

So, what struggle Stephen Cohen talks about when states:

It seems unlikely that President Trump or any of the advisers currently around him understand this important struggle—and it is a struggle—unfolding in the Russian policy elite.

I don't know. This struggle, like this discussion, mentioned above, between Kudrin and Glaziev is unfolding now for what, 15 years, maybe 17? As events with Abyzov show, so called "liberal" pro-western "elite" in Russia begins to understand that the only person who separates them and the nooses on the lamp posts, or sharp pitchforks, is none other than Vladimir Putin and his team. In the end, somehow, Putin lately (few months, at least) comes across more and more as a person of a cool and even relaxed disposition who knows that what is needed to be done is being done. 

So, while Russia has some serious problems and there are some protests, I can vouch for this simple fact: MOST--I don't know, 70%, 80%--of population of Russia knows what their country faces today and what it is up against, and that is the main reason why Russia increasingly sought as an ally, no matter if her economy grows 2% (sure, Russia doesn't have Wall Street to fake economic data) or 3%, especially against the background of a tectonic change in global power balance, which Russia and China drive. And while Stephen Cohen's instincts and appeals are good and laudable, he exhibits the same trait characteristic of American Russian Studies field, he misinterprets Russia dramatically. I know, I am writing about this for years. I am almost forced to recall truism attributed to Metternich "Russia is never as strong as she seems, she is never as weak as she seems". Stephen Cohen is a wonderful man and a frequent guest of Russia--I think it is about time we all start operating with hard cold facts. As per summit--do not expect much from it, just another photo-op. United States is NOT treaty-worthy party anymore, especially her current POTUS, so let's drop any pretenses that anything will change between Russia and the United States. No Detente is in plans. Let's say thanks that they at least talk to each-other.   

Stephen Cohen Makes A Slight Mistake.

When Dr. Stephen Cohen speaks, I listen. So, I read his latest piece on pathological neocon war-mongers (most of them draft-dodgers or humanities "professors" thousands miles away from theaters of operation) in RT. It is a good piece:

Anyone who has lived through or studied the preceding forty-year Cold War will recognize the ominous echoes of its most dangerous periods, when actual war was on the horizon or a policy option. Here are only a few random but representative examples: In a March 8 Washington Post opinion article, two American professors, neither with any apparent substantive knowledge of Russia or Cold War history, warned that the Kremlin is trying “to undermine our trust in the institutions that sustain a strong nation and a strong democracy. The media, science, academia and the electoral process are all regular targets.” Decades ago, J. Edgar Hoover, the policeman of that Cold War, said the same, indeed made it an operational doctrine.

But then Doctor Cohen makes a slight mistake when states that:

But the preceding Cold War was driven by an intense ideological conflict between Soviet Communism and Western capitalism.

Here, we have to be very clear that on the West's (primarily Anglo-Saxon West) side this war was against historic Russia, not "communism" (grossly misunderstood and deliberately misinterpreted) and Russians. Hans Morgenthau was explicit in 1957, as were explicit American ideological doctrines that emphasized:

   "I would say, and I have said many times before, that if the czars still reigned in Russia, that if Lenin had died of the measles at an early age, that if Stalin had never been heard of, but the power of the Soviet Union were exactly what it is today, the problem of Russia would be for us by and large what it is today. If the Russian armies stood exactly where they stand today, and if Russian technological development were what it is today, we would be by and large confronted with the same problems which confront us today."

US problem was not with "communism", which was merely a propaganda cliche, it was with Russia and Russians as  such, as a nation.  It still is. It was and is the issue of precious bodily fluids from the get go, especially today between neocons and so called interventionist "elites". I totally get where Cohen comes from, I addressed this issue myself not for once--US "strategists" (let alone utterly corrupt media) are for the most part unqualified and not that well educated people, as last 20 years, or so, so manifestly demonstrated. The danger of these people such as Kagans, Petraeuses, or this mindless bimbo AOC is that these people are utterly unqualified for a statesmanship and, maybe with some caveat for such military "leader" as Petraeus, have no a faintest idea what real war is. So, I also have issues with calling such a pseudo-"thinker" as Robert Kagan, or coward John Bolton or anyone from this pool of ignoramuses running US foreign policy and military disasters, "warriors"--none of those people have any idea what being real warrior is and that too is a problem. As I stated not for once, I feel slightly more secure when I know that Dunford and Gerasimov talk to each-other--talking to Bolton or Pompeo is a waste of time. 

Today, observing an American wasteland of military and geopolitical thought which follows in step with complete political and ideological degeneration of the American state, one is forced to prepare for war which, in a current American case, could be unleashed by people who have no clue. 

P.S. I don't think that Dr. Cohen serves his noble cause well when references the name of Solzhenitsyn who played his, however small, role in helping to topple one of the versions of the historic Russia and maybe Dr. Cohen has to ask himself a question why the monument to this self-proclaimed "consciousness of Russia" in Moscow is under specifically setup 24/7 video surveillance. But that is a separate topic of Russian history and here I and Dr. Cohen may have different views altogether.     

John Mearsheimer And Stephen Cohen--Succinct.

No comments are needed. Listen attentively to Mearsheimer's remark on "freedom" in geopolitical sense.  That is pure, distilled and very healthy Realism--the way it is supposed to be.

 

To The Credit Of Fox News

Tucker Carlson brings Stephen Cohen to his show and a remarkable conversation happens--honest and in agreement. I didn't see that in a long while. Cohen's points for the most part are valid, but especially so his lament of this current geopolitical insanity being perpetrated by the so called "progressives". This also, however circumstantially, answers the question about who gave the order to assassinate Ambassador Karlov. 

    

Meanwhile, the truth begins to surface at the affiliates of a major network. 

As Russian proverb (also spoken in one of the cult movies of 1990s Brat, "Brother") goes: The God is not in power, he is in truth.