A little bit of reality seeps into the Bush Administration's view of the world. Will any neocons denounce Bush as a traitor for abandoning the fantasy of converting the whole world to democracy?
The secretaries of state and defense and a squadron of other U.S. officials head to Moscow next week for a series of top-level meetings. They will discuss missile defense, a conventional forces treaty and the next step in nuclear arms cuts.
Not on the official agenda -- the future of Russian democracy.
In watching Russia's slide toward authoritarianism, the Bush administration once considered the ultimate test to be whether President Vladimir Putin voluntarily gave up power in 2008 as promised. But this week Putin shrugged off U.S. warnings and signaled that he plans to keep power by becoming prime minister, once again surprising an administration that has now all but abandoned hopes of influencing Russia's internal direction.
What happened? Did the Bushies run out of hubris pills?
Also, if Russia is destined to continue to become less democratic do we need to follow the neocon logic and conclude that of course the lack of democracy and freedom will lead to Russian frustration and terrorism? Do we need to start treating the Russians like terrorist suspects because they lack democracy?
What, you ask "But what about Islam as the root cause of Muslim terrorism? What does democracy have to do with it?". Hey, I'm just trying to follow the logic of Bush and the neocons (and not a few liberals) to its logical conclusion. If lack of democracy causes terrorism and the spread of democracy is necessary in order to stop terrorism (and does Condi Rice still believe this?) then the Russians are on the road to terrorism. Watch out Finland.
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2007 October 04 08:36 PM Russia|