The Nation, the progressive magazine founded long ago by abolitionists, reached its modern low point last century when it served as a mouthpiece for Joseph Stalin’s Soviet regime in the run-up to World War II and even during its short-lived alliance with Nazi Germany.
But now, more than a quarter-century after the U.S.S.R. was consigned to the dustbin of history, the magazine retains its Russian sympathies, and has released a statement calling for “common ground” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The motley crew of celebrity signatories to this statement include top American always-blame-the-West commentators such as Phyllis Bennis, the portly foreign policy expert Michael Moore, and Gloria Steinem.
Recognizing that most of its readers are probably very angry about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential and congressional elections, The Nation begins its statement with an olive branch to readers.
“Many Americans remain deeply concerned about reports of Russian interference with the 2016 election.”
But then the deference to deep concern is vanquished. Throwing scorn on the U.S. intelligence community’s high-confidence assessment of Russian interference, the statement equivocates: “Whatever the truth of varied charges that Russia interfered with the election…” Instead, The Nation argues that the best response to Russian cyberthreats is defensive: “As a nation, we must fortify our election system against unlawful intrusions as well as official policies of voter suppression.”
Sorry, signatories, but that’s an invitation to Russian aggression. The basic lesson of dealing with Russian intelligence service hostility is always the same: The only defense worth playing is a good offense. Push back hard, or they will push back more.
The Nation’s statement goes on to blame the U.S. for problems purely of Russian making. “Diplomacy has given way to hostility and reciprocal consular expulsions,” it says, “along with dozens of near-miss military encounters in Syria and in skies above Europe. Both sides are plunging ahead with major new weapons-development programs.”
The solution? “The United States should implement a pronounced shift in approach toward Russia … Concrete steps can and must be taken to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers.”
The Nation evidently wants the U.S. to make concessions to Putin, under the presumption that doing so would serve U.S. national security interests. In reality, such a policy would be disastrous. Whether Putin is plotting invasions against NATO, or throwing nerve agents around rural towns and murdering British civilians, or attacking U.S. military personnel, or threatening journalists, or shooting down civilian airliners, Russia is entirely to blame for the present tension in Washington-Moscow relations.
The statement, despite being a complete embarrassment to the publication and to its signatories, isn’t terribly surprising. The Nation’s editor and publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel, is married to Stephen Cohen, one of the most pro-Kremlin of all Russia-focused U.S. academics.
If you want a more honest and realistic appraisal of U.S.-Russian cooperation, read Pat Buchanan. I disagree with him, but Buchanan at least has the honesty to argue that compromise with Russia would require U.S. deference to Russia over its perceived rightful sphere of influence in places like the Baltics and Ukraine.
