This page contains links to recent blogs by Lincoln Mitchell
Tagged with: Vladimir Putin
The lines between domestic and international affairs have never been blurrier than they are now. Nowhere is this clearer than in the complex and increasingly hostile relations between the US, Ukraine and Russia. As the world watched the battles in Ukraine, we should not overlook the enormous impact electoral battles in American states like Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio next month and in 2024 will have on the future of Ukraine.
The best way for the US to help Ukraine is to have a functioning Biden administration-and preventing that is the primary goal of the GOP. Therefore, doing the domestic and policy work must be at the center of Biden’s efforts to support Ukraine in this war.
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 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.
What was once a question of whether or not the President sought to withhold military assistance for an ally unless they agreed to investigate Joe Biden, is now a scandal about corruption within the Trump administration that is so widespread that impeachment seems like only the beginning of a long judicial process. It is a scandal that ties together the avarice and greed of Trump and his cronies with their disturbing willingness to pursue policies that support Russia’s interests while simultaneously revealing their continued contempt for America election law, mores and processes.
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.
Some of the most important issues in the Trump Russia mess are in danger of being lost in waters now muddied by unproven stories about prostitutes, less than plausible assertions that Trump is some kind of semi-sleeper agent and what amounts to little more than kvetching by the DNI about RT. The first of these is that Trump benefited from a Russian effort to swing the election, not by having their state run media support him, but through Russia breaking into the DNC emails and leaking damaging information about Hilary Clinton. The second is that there is reason to believe, not least because of Donald Trump’s steady refusal to dispel concern by releasing his tax records, that the Trump Organization has a financial relationship with Russia that will lead to conflicts of interest once he becomes president. Moreover, these potential conflicts of interest may drive US policy towards Russia. These are the two issues that raise deep concerns for the country and that any congress, regardless of party, that understood its role in our system of checks and balances as central to our democracy, would have begun investigating already.
Putin did not create Trump; nor did he create a situation in the US where a candidate like Trump could get so much traction. Rather, in an election that was won on the margins, Russia was deeply and undeniably active in those margins; and that was enough to influence the outcome. That much should be clear to anybody who has spent time around campaigns, appreciates how close this race was or simply can do long division, or frankly, addition and subtraction.
While people in Eastern Europe can’t vote in this election, Polish Americans, Latvian Americans, Ukrainian Americans and other Americans with roots in countries that feel threatened by an aggressive Russia do. Many of these voters are part of the very demographic groups upon whom Mr. Trump will rely on for his path to victory against Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump needs a record proportion of white votes to win this election; and he particularly needs them in states of the upper Midwest, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that have long had large numbers of voters with roots in Eastern Europe.
A Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine would put Putin’s assertions about Ukraine to the test; conversely, the Ukrainian state and society would be put to the test as well. If the Ukrainian people rise up in an insurgency, the occupation would fail, leaving Russia either stuck in a long and unwinnable conflict or forced to retreat. The outcome of such a conflict could also threaten Putin’s own hold on power within Russia. On the other hand, if there is no insurgency following the invasion, then Putin could claim vindication that, despite more than twenty years of de jure independence, Ukraine was never really a state.
The debate in the U.S. about how to respond to the Russian invasion has shows the complete self absorption of much of the American political establishment. Russia invaded Crimea primarily because of Russia's interest in Ukraine, domestic political issues in Russia, and as a reaction to recent political events in Ukraine. However, the response in Washington, particularly from the right, has suggested that Russia acted because of America's, and specifically President Obama's, weakness. This assertion was, of course, more about politics in the U.S., than anything happening in Ukraine, but it nonetheless demonstrated that for many what happened in Crimea had to be attributable to something that the U.S., and the Obama administration, did or did not do.
Yet, the West rarely recognizes that Russia, like countries in the West, has its own interests. To Westerners, Russia’s actions are part of a storied narrative: It consistently acts in outrageous ways to thwart not Western interests, but also moral and political good in Ukraine. There’s a big problem with that view: By recasting a struggle between two political forces and interests as one simply between right and wrong, the West makes it more difficult to understand and combat Russian influence. If the U.S. and Europe want to change Russia’s behavior, they must toss those antiquated, Cold War notions, and accept that modern tensions are substantially based on economic and political interests, not just on latent Russian anger, or its alleged inferiority complex. That means accepting, for example, that scolding Russian leaders for breaking Western rules and expectations won’t provoke changes in Moscow. More dramatically, it may require the U.S. to recognize the limits of its ability to influence outcomes in Ukraine or other countries where Russia also has interests at stake.
The Russian election occurred on Sunday with results that were consistent with what most people expected. Vladimir Putin won the election handily among widespread reports of election fraud, inflated vote totals from the northern Caucasus region of Russia, and general electoral misconduct. Putin, according to official reports, won roughly 63% of the vote, which was a higher proportion of the vote than some had anticipated, but his huge margin of victory, a full 45 points more than second place finisher Gennady Zyuganov, was less of a surprise.