It is 4:45 at CPAC national harbor and I was about to write something about CPAC or schedule a few new videos when I decided to take a quick peek at Hotair.com.
That’s where I saw this story at the New York Times by Chrystia Freeland in headlines with the title:
Now our media friends on the left as I’ve already said are doing their best to turn the successful occupation and annexation of a part of another country as no big deal so, in that respect, that statement is no more idiotic than anything else our leftist friends in the MSM say. However on a whim I read the piece and found there was one paragraph that hit me like a 2 x 4 across the head in disbelief.
First there was the lead in …
For Ukraine, as well as for Russia and much of the former U.S.S.R., the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was only a partial revolution. The U.S.S.R. vanished, but the old nomenklatura, and its venal, authoritarian style of governance remained. Mr. Putin is explicitly drawing on that heritage and fitfully trying to reshape it into a new state capitalist system that can compete and flourish globally. An alliance with Mr. Yanukovych’s Ukraine was an essential part of that plan.
meh no big deal a tad bit of spin but nothing beyond the normal MSM pabulum.
But the paragraph that followed that just blew me away (all emphasis mine)
That effort has now failed. Whatever Mr. Putin achieves in Ukraine, it will not be partnership with a Slavic younger brother enthusiastically joining in his neo-imperialist, neo-Soviet project.
Have these people ever heard about the Soviet Union? How it was formed, what it did? How it was maintained?
Where in the history of the Soviet Era does the word “enthusiastic” come into play other than restraining dissidents?
Does Chrystia Freeland really think that Vladimir Putin, an old KGB communist guy, care if the areas that are either annexed or turned into puppet states are enthusiastic about it? Can she actually believe that he considers it a failure that “conquered” lands are not cheering of their own accord? Can a person who writes about foreign affairs in the paper of record actually be that ignorant of both history and human nature?
Not only apparently can it be the case but the NYT, the old paper of Walter “love that famine” Duranty, will happily print it with a straight face.
I submit and suggest that any person who would make such a statement should not be taken seriously on any question of foreign affairs. I further suggest that any publication that would consider that statement serious should not be considered the paper of record of anything.
But that’s just me.
Saturday is here and I regret to say this weeks Goal is not
We are still a full $235 from a full paycheck for me and my magnificent seven (plus 2)
This is a very bad thing and with not to many hours left the only way that will change is if you decide it’s worth changing, so if you do please hit DaTipJar below
And remember we only need 61 Subscribers at $20 and all of this will be taken care of for the full year. Your reading will not be cluttered with my pitches and my Fridays and Saturdays particularly will contain a whole lot less worry (and I frankly don’t have the hair to spare)