America’s lack of “moral coherency” is effectively masking the sad, hard truth that Clinton wasn’t off-base in her Nazi/Putin comparison. In a recent conversation with Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the ex-KGB agent commented to me:
Is it too far-fetched to suggest that this new Russia calls up the hypothetical image of a postwar Germany being run by former Gestapo officers, who reinstate Hitler’s “Deutschland Über Alles” as national anthem, call the demise of Nazi Germany a “national tragedy on an enormous scale,” and invade a neighboring country, perhaps Poland, the way Hitler set off World War II?
In an environment that doesn’t permit the bad guy to be called bad, perhaps Americans should celebrate the fact that we’re even able to put economic sanctions on the table. With Russia’s economy already in free fall, the sanctions should appear to be a viable threat. However, the truth is that living poor is already a way of life for the majority of Russians. According to the Jewish Policy Center (JPC):
This systemic and ongoing waste of financial resources contributes directly to the low quality of life endured by millions of average Russian citizens, to the growing emigration from Russia, and to the increasingly radicalization of Russia’s Muslim population.
The New York Times corroborated the observation last week:
Crimea’s Tatars have no record of extremism, but armed intervention by Moscow could strengthen the hand of tiny militant Islamic groups that have long tried, but failed, to rally Tatars for jihad.
The JPC policy paper asserts that Putin will remain in power as long as Russia’s economy remains intact. If economic analysts are correct, and American economic sanctions against Russia do disarm Putin, we may be facing an entirely different enemy altogether.
Oh, sorry, I forgot; “enemy” is a term best relegated to alternative media. It is not intended for political conversation.