George Will seems to be testing some new comedic material in one of his latest columns, bruising the Obama administration over making a priority of getting a nukes treaty with Russia. He calls Dmitry Medvedev a “human potemkin village” (which we think may be taking things a little far … see our recent video of expert interviews), and argues that given Nicholas Eberstadt’s recent articles about Russia depopulation and alcoholism, there’s really not quite so much of a need for Obama to focus on giving away the farm to Russia.
This blog has frequently written about the need for a more expansive dialogue on values beyond just security and defense issues, but the idea that just because Russia is drunk and dying that they couldn’t sell one of their 2,000+ nuclear warheads to an extremist is a little hard to swallow.
I always thought George Will’s older material was much more funny – like his passionate denunciation of blue jeans and climate change denial.
Subscribe by Email
4 Comments
Hmmm, interesting.So Will dismissing Medvedev (I for one fully agree with his characterization) is “funny” — but your dismissing Will, a Putlizer prize winning journalist and one of the most influential and powerful conservative commentators in the nation, is to be taken seriously?I rather think not. You’ve become a bit carried away with yourselves, perhaps, both in terms of hypocrisy and your own significance? Doens’t Mr. K. need all the allies he can get?
No, that’s not really the point. I am disputing Will’s argument that because Russia has a crippling demographic problem threatening its future, that nuclear issues aren’t important. That’s the discussion of his article.George Will has some great articles sometimes, and certainly any president of any country deserves robust criticism. But the projection of domestic partisan politics upon foreign affairs often doesn’t work or make sense … especially with Russia … and that seems to drive most of Will’s Russia writings.This is my opinion, and no one else’s, just to be clear.
Not sure you read what he wrote. Focus on this: “Actually, what was needed was not the chimera of arms control but Ronald Reagan’s renewal of the arms race that helped break the Soviet regime.”He’s saying that Russia should be confronted and crushed, not coddled and respected as Obama is doing. He’s saying Russia is not formidable, and therefore there is no need to negotiate with it as Obama is doiing.I have to say I’m apalled at your failure to directly criticize Obama for his cuddling of Chavez and soft-peddling of Medvedev. Nothing about human rights or any other liberal values. One might think you are acting out of blind partisanship, ignoring the issues that you claim matter where Obama is concerned. That would be very disappointing to say the least.
It looks like we are debating different things again. I am disagreeing with Will’s argument that nuclear arms in Russia aren’t going to be a problem because of the rampant depopulation. I just can’t see the connection.I think you would also find significant disagreement with Will’s characterization of Medvedev as a human potemkin village among other people who know more about Russia … for example, Ariel Cohen.All this Obama and Hugo Chavez stuff seems independent of that, and further there’s no compelling reason to think that were the Republicans running the show, we would have different policy (which is why John McCain refused to criticize Obama’s moves with Russia in the FT).