Russian Air Force Su-25 jets fly past the
Russian flag on the Kremlin complex during a rehearsal for the Victory
Day military parade in Moscow, Friday, May 4, 2018. (AP Photo / Pavel Golovkin)
US Cold Warriors escalate toward actual war with Russia.
By Stephen F. Cohen
March 26, 2019
The John Batchelor Show, March 20, 2019
Heedless of the consequences,
Anyone who has lived through or studied
Originally published by The Nation on March 20, 2019 here
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.
§ Nor is the purported threat to America only. According to (retired) Gen. David Petraeus and sitting Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, also in the Post
on the following day, the “world is once again polarized between two
competing visions for how to organize society.” For Putin’s Kremlin,
“the existence of the United States’ rule-of-law world is intrinsically
threatening.” This is an “intensifying worldwide struggle.” So much for
those who dismissed post–Soviet Russia as merely a “regional” power,
including former President Barack Obama, and for the myopic notion that a
new Cold War was not possible.
§ But the preceding Cold War was driven by
That is, “authoritarianism” has replaced Soviet Communism
The substance of Kagan’s “authoritarianism” as “an
Still, credit Kagan’s ambition to be the undisputed ideologist of the new American Cold War, though less the Post for taking the voluminous result so seriously.
The 40-year Cold War often flirted with hot war, and that, too, seems
to be on the agenda. Words, as Russians say, are also deeds. They have
consequences, especially when uttered by people of standing in
influential outlets. Again, consider a few examples that might
reasonably be considered warmongering:
§ The journal Foreign Policy found space for disgraced former Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili to declare:
“It is not a question of whether [Putin] will attack, but where.”
(Saakashvili may be the most discredited “democratic” leader of recent
times, having brought the West close to war with Russia in 2008 and
since having had to flee his own country and then decamp even from
US-backed Ukraine.)
§ NBC News, a reliable source of Cold War frenzy, reported,
based on Estonian “intelligence,” an equally persistent source of the
same mania, that “Russia is most likely to attack the Baltic States
first, but a conflict between Russia and NATO would involve attacks on
Western Europe.”
§ Also in March, in The Economist,
another retired general, Ben Hodges, onetime commander of the US army
in Europe, echoes that apocalyptic perspective: “This is not just about
NATO’s eastern front.” (Readers may wish to note that “eastern front” is
the designation given by Nazi Germany to its 1941 invasion of Soviet
Russia. Russians certainly remember.)
§ Plenty of influential American Cold War zealots seem eager to
respond to the bugle charge, among them John E. Herbst, a stalwart at
the Atlantic Council (NATO’s agitprop “think tank” in Washington), and
the Post’s deputy editorial-page editor, Jackson Diehl. Both
want amply armed US and NATO warships sent to what Russians sometimes
call their bordering “lakes,” the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea. To do
so would likely mean the “war” NBC envisages.
Lest readers think all this is merely the “chattering”
Again, Russia is ritualistically accused of “malign influence” and “aggression” around the world, the quality of the committee’s thinking succinctly expressed by one of the Republican senators: “Putin’s Russia is an outlaw regime that is hell-bent on undermining international law and destroying the US-led liberal global order.” There is no evidence for these allegations – Russian policy-makers are constantly citing international law, and the US “liberal global order,” if it ever existed, has done a fine job of undoing itself—but with “an outlaw regime,” there can be no diplomacy, nor do the senators propose any, only war.
A recurring theme of my recently published book War with Russia? is that the new Cold War is more dangerous, more fraught with hot war, than the one we survived.
All of the above amply confirms that thesis, but there is more. Histories of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War tell
But as I also chronicle in the book, today’s American Cold Warriors blame only Russia, specifically “Putin’s Russia,” leaving no room or incentive for rethinking any US policy
Still more, as I have also long pointed out, Moscow
On March 14, Russia’s National Security Council, headed by President Putin, officially raised its perception of American intentions toward Russia from “military dangers” (
Finally, there continues to be no effective, organized American
opposition to the new Cold War. This too is a major theme of my book and
another reason why this Cold War is more dangerous than was its
predecessor. In the 1970s and 1980s, advocates of détente were
well-organized, well-funded, and well-represented, from grassroots
politics and universities to think tanks, mainstream media, Congress,
the State Department, and even the White House. Today there is no such
opposition anywhere.
A major factor is, of course, “Russiagate.”
As evidenced in
Nancy Pelosi, the leader of its
Originally published by The Nation on March 20, 2019 here
Its shining new pennies seem little different. Beto O’Rourke,
Another
Evidently, neither
Among Democrats, there is one exception, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who is also a declared candidate for the
Herself a veteran of the US military forces, Representative
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen’s most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show. Now in their fifth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com.

Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies, history,
I am sure that if a capable psychiatrist examined some of these individuals they would be certified as mad and put under care and observation. Some others are warmongers who do not think about the consequences of what they are wishing for. If these people represent “liberal world order” and “the rule of law”, may God save us from authoritarians.