This page contains links to recent blogs by Lincoln Mitchell
Tagged with: Russia
It is true that sometimes presidents have to place good policy over short term political gain; and the war in Ukraine is certainly one of those times when that calculation might be necessary, but Biden could do more to reduce some of the possible political harm of these policies.
A Ukraine reeling from invasion and possibly occupation would be weak, unstable and have no chance of further integration into NATO and the EU. That may be Putin’s goal, but it may not be all he is trying to do. And, Ukraine is not the only country that could end up weaker and less stable due to this war.
Given Russia’s role in destabilizing American politics in recent years, it is certain the Kremlin understands the President, and the country’s, vulnerability at this moment. That may not be the primary reason they have chosen now to loudly beat the drums of war in Ukraine, but it has certainly informed their thinking.
Hoax is an important word in the contemporary GOP lexicon. It is the political equivalent of Charlie Brown pleading with Schroeder “Tell your statistics to shut up!”
From Putin’s perspective, this meeting will be very different than his interactions with Biden’s predecessor. Unlike Trump, Biden is not going to trust Putin’s word rather than the findings American intelligence agencies. Similarly, whereas Russia supported Trump and sought to help him in his campaigns in both 2016 and, less successfully, in 2020, Biden has never benefited from the Kremlin’s forays into American domestic politics. In short, Russia has lost a client in the White House and that will frame the entire summit. Accordingly, in addition to the myriad issues and tensions between the two countries, for Biden and his party, there is also a sense, among many around Biden, of there being unfinished business from the 2016 election, the SolarWinds hack in 2020 and the relatively new, but enduring and nefarious, ties between the Kremlin and the American far right. Accordingly, Biden’s primary message Putin should be that “there’s a new Sherriff in town.” That is the kind of message that is best delivered in person, but that also needs to be backed up with meaningful actions.
The poisoning of Navalny and the demonstrations around Russia that followed have begun to become an important tension in US-Russia relations. The new Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has condemned the Russian mistreatment of demonstrators and journalists involved in those demonstrations in a tone that suggests the Biden administration, unlike its predecessor, will not be letting the Kremlin call the shots when it comes to US policy on Russia.
The Republican Party is deeply invested in this false equivalency between 2016 and 2020. It remains essential not just for Trump and those closest to the 2016 campaign, but for many in the GOP who deliberately mislead the American people about the extent of Russia’s role in 2016, that the truth about 2016 remain obscured and that the question of holding people accountable for what they did in 2016 remains buried.
The notion that an American president would do nothing, and say nothing, if confronted with the knowledge that a foreign adversary was offering bounties to the Taliban for killing American troops is so outrageous that it is easy to dismiss as the rantings of a left-winger deluded by an irrational hatred for the president. However, these are not rumors from some obscure website but findings in reported in some of America’s most respected media outlets. When confronted with these reports, the White House has responded not with strong statements of support for our troops but by asserting that the President was not briefed about this. Sadly, given the limited mental capacity of the president, which lead to difficulties briefing him, this may in some sense be true.
The decision by the non-Trump leadership of the Republican Party to cast their lot with Russia and Trump rather than with the US, and indeed with traditional conservative, even right-wing policies is baffling, but only if one ignores the corrosive influences of bigotry, ignorance and anti-democratic sentiments in the GOP since long before spring of 2015.
It is easy, and not entirely inaccurate, to describe the US has a deeply polarized country and to argue that the impeachment hearings demonstrate this as the Democrats and Republicans in the relevant congressional committees have such radically different understandings of the events in question. This explanation is insufficient because it glosses over the critical reality of the state of American politics as demonstrated during the impeachment hearings. The issue is not so much one of political polarization but that the Republicans in Congress, reflecting the position they share with the White House and the right wing media and punditry, are deeply committed to constructing and inhabiting a fantasy world built on a foundation of deliberate lies and held together with support from the Kremlin and almost solely dedicated to keeping Donald Trump, and those around him, in power and out of prison.
The Trump presidency has pushed many Democrats not so much to the right, but towards supporting the foreign policy establishment of the last half century or so. While the trauma of the Trump presidency has made any comfortable alternative seem better, it does not follow that returning to the foreign policy status quo is the best approach. There is a reason why Trump’s promises to extricate America from foreign wars and his “America First” policy, despite, and for some because of, its ugly anti-Semitic pedigree, resonated so much with the electorate. By 2016, most Americans had realized that the foreign policy establishment was no longer serving them well. Accordingly, while structures and institutions of American foreign policy need to be restored, returning to policy choices of that establishment is a questionable electoral and governing approach for any Democrat.
The biggest political question is what impact a House impeachment and Senate acquittal would have on the presidential election. There is no way to tell, but we know that impeachment proceedings would last well into 2020, and the political impact well beyond that, thus making it very likely that the campaign would not primarily be about climate change, health care, education, guns or any other issues that are good for the Democrats, but about impeachment. That might help the Democrats, but it seems apparent that there is no guarantee of that. In fact, it may be precisely what Trump wants.
The consensus that has emerged from Mueller’s statement his that rather than indict the President, he has given Congress a mandate to pursue impeachment. This allows Mueller to present himself like an institutionalist, suggesting that our Constitutional processes can kick into gear and right the wrongs of the Trump campaign administration. The problem with this ostensibly patriotic notion is that anybody who has been paying attention knows that congress will never remove Trump from office because there will never be 67 votes in the GOP controlled Senate to convict him. Thus, by pushing the responsibility to Congress, all Mueller really accomplishes is to create a political conundrum for Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House and leader of the Democratic Party in Washington. If Mueller was not aware of this, it is not because he eschews politics, but because he is appallingly ignorant. For that reason, it is likely he was aware of the consequence of what he was doing, which raises the question of why he did it.
In the years since the 2016 campaign, various media figures and institutions, including the New York Times,haveapologizedfor their shoddy coverageof that election and of Donald Trump. The gist of these sentiments have been that media outlets made a mistake by allowing themselves to be pulled like moths to the flame that was Donald Trump’s strange, unconventional and sensational candidacy, while failing to give enough coverage to his primary opponents and creating a false equivalency between Trump’s scandals and those related to Hillary Clinton. Despite these mistakes, most of the media similarly botched their coverage of Attorney General William Barr’s letter to congressional leaders summarizing the final report by Special Investigator Robert Mueller.
The Mueller report is an important historical document that scholars will study closely in future decades, but as a political document it was always going to going to have a limited impact. Based on the indictments and information we have learned in the 20 months of the investigation, it is clear that Trump had, at the very least, an untoward relationship with Moscow that should make any American, regardless of party, deeply concerned. It was also clear that even if the report had called for indicting the entire Trump family, Trump’s Tweets about “witch hunts” and “no collusion” were going to be believed by the third or so of the American people that are now his praetorian guard.
In this context, occasional statements by the people like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) that if the President fired Robert Mueller, it would be the beginning of the end of his presidency or by the office of the Speaker Ryan urging Trump to let Mueller finish his job, should not be taken at face value. These are not principled statements by patriotic Americans. Rather they are last ditch efforts by ethically broken politicians to salvage their reputations by words that, if the last two years teach us anything, are extremely unlikely to be backed up by meaningful action.
In Trump’s America, this is the no longer out of the ordinary, but it reveals that the erosion of American political institutions and the American people’s confidence in those institutions is not a peripheral effect of the Trump presidency, but is indeed the goal of the Trump presidency. The Nunes memo was an effort to discredit the FBI, Robert Mueller and indeed the rule of law in America. This may be essential for the survival of the Trump administration, but the impact on American democracy, and the American state, will be profound.
Election outcomes may be the next target of Trump’s relentless effort to define anything he doesn’t like as fake news. This could take the form of Republican candidates, particularly those with strong support from the President, refusing to accept defeat in close races. This may sound extreme and unlikely-and it would have even three years ago, but this is a different America. Donald Trump himself made it clear during the 2016 election, that he would not simply accept the election outcome if he were to lose.
Through a relatively steady drumbeat of accusations of partisanship, behind the scenes shenanigans and consistently lying to the American people, the Trump administration, mostly with support from the Republicans in Congress, has largely defanged the Mueller investigation. Mueller may or may not be fired, but it probably does not matter. If he is fired it will not be the major paradigm shifting event that many hope. Instead, it will be a two day story. If Trump, or a subordinate at the Department of Justice, fires Mueller on December 22nd, America will be talking about something else by New Years Day at the latest and perhaps by Boxing Day. If Mueller remains in his position, any further indictments, findings or statements will be mostly grist for the partisan mill that is Washington.
There were, however, an awful lot of other people who were either involved in this untoward relationship between a presidential campaign and a less than friendly foreign power or who, at the very least, were aware of it and chose to say, and do, nothing. This probably includes people who were deeply involved with the campaign like Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions who now hold positions at the highest level of government, as well as many others who are less well known. In addition, people were around the campaign and had access to this knowledge in summer of 2016, like most of the congressional leadership, numerous Republican campaign and policy people and many others. Not all of these people were silent about their knowledge of these activities, but the overwhelming majority were. Many Democrats sought to draw attention to it, but in the heat of the campaign, or its immediate aftermath, only Republicans could have raised a sufficient hue and cry about it. Almost to a person they chose not to. That is a damning indictment of a political party.