I’ve never voted for a national Republican ticket in my life, which now encompasses an astonishing (to me, anyway) 13 presidential elections. But before the GOP became the Party of Trump, I often respected the Republican nominees when they merited it, and that included Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, and many Republican senators (including Minnesotans like Dave Durenberger) as people of principle.
Sen. Romney (Utah) is one of the very few prominent members of his party who maintained his dignity and his integrity during the Trump Era.
Romney even became the first-ever (and still only) senator to vote for conviction in an impeachment trial of a President of his own party.
On Sunday morning, he was interviewed on CNN’s State of the Union, and he demonstrated once again his ability to rise above partisanship and give his honest, honorable view of important matters.
Under the questioning of co-anchor Dana Bash, Romney referred to the current Russian government as an “evil regime,” and expressed several reasonable views about how the U.S. should handle the current crisis.
Everything he said in a 17-minute interview about the Russia-Ukraine news made sense to me.
I only want to highlight Romney’s latest views as a way of emphasizing that those who sold their reputations so cheaply during the Trump era should have to sit in a corner for a while before any of their views are taken seriously, especially on anything that requires an ethical compass.
Now that the Narrative is turning toward direct conflict in the form of a no-fly zone and American troops on the ground, I found this talk by John Mearshimer at the University of Chicago to be a bit of refreshing foreign policy realism. For anyone wanting to escape from war propaganda, this is useful:
The salient points, this conflict is ultimately the fault of the West constantly poking the Great Bear in the eye. Putin has decided, fine, if you think you are going to install your war machine on Ukrainian soil, I am going to wreck Ukraine.
What should be done, is build up Ukraine as a kind of buffer between Russia and Europe, under control of neither. But there is about a zero percent chance of that happening now, under the foreign policy “leadership” of Tweddle Dee (Republicans) and Tweedle Dum (Democrats). Instead we risk WWIII, we drive Russia toward China, when we and Europe need Russia to counter China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=3807s
“Now that the Narrative is turning toward direct conflict in the form of a no-fly zone and American troops on the ground”
Got sources? I’ve not seen either of these proposals.
I forgot to add “Regime change in Russia”.
Here Greenwald shows many of the people in the Foreign Policy establishment talking about it, with a lot from Representatives Kinzinger and Salwell. Salwell has even called for deporting all Russians in America back to Russia, no kidding.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/war-propaganda-about-ukraine-becoming?
Salwell didn’t say “All” Russians, he said Russian exchange students. But of course, once you start talking about rounding up one group of people, it’s that much easier to round up the next. I made the change and posted as another comment.
A no-fly zone can’t be implemented until after air superiority has been established.
Western aircraft suitable for such an endeavor would be an escalation and would directly involve NATO.
That’s a step toward nuclear confrontation.
They are real, but….
They refer to NATO territory, not Russia.
I believe that there is a no fly zone over Belarus.
Neither refers to Ukraine, much less Russia.
Putin is the one trying to tell other countries what to do.
I forgot to add “Regime change in Russia”.
Here Greenwald shows many of the people in the Foreign Policy establishment talking about it, with a lot from Representatives Kinzinger and Salwell. Salwell has even called for deporting all Russian exchange students in America back to Russia, no kidding.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/war-propaganda-about-ukraine-becoming?
I guess one can say this is a point of view, but it strikes me as entirely unpersuasive. Since you have elected to not remotely filedl out whatever the argument may be, I am required to make assumptions.
Let’s look at the tiresome “poking Putin in the eye” rhetoric, as though he was utterly blameless for the course of foreign policy in eastern Europe in the past 20+ years. This argument necessarily must get started with the expansion of NATO to quite a number of Warsaw Pact nations in the post Soviet period. Whatever the wisdom of that decision over the past 25 years, those nations were clamoring for admittance, and most of them entered some time ago, so the idea that there has been any recent “poking” of Putin is absurd. Obviously there was no ongoing movement toward admitting Ukraine, and no reason to think that such admission would ever be forthcoming for a number of reasons. And any examination of NATO shows it to be a rather ramshackle collection of relatively weak and poorly funded military forces in any event.
Then (I guess) we have the “poking” of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution that threw out a Pro-Putin president. The West likely should not have expressed support for that extra-constitutional rebellion, but the great majority of the Ukrainian populace was not willing to allow Putin’s ally to tie the country’s hands into a pro-Russian trade regime. So this elected president basically was flouting the will of the majority, and got a revolution for his (and Putin’s) trouble. Further, the idea that it wasn’t “really” the Ukrainian people behind this rebellion, and that it was really engineered by the West (“Victoria Nuland!!, etc) isn’t worth discussing.
Putin’s response was to invade Ukraine in 2014 and ultimately annex the Crimea, which was a violation of international law and the UN charter. So he got hit with Western sanctions, which he and his kleptocracy were able to ignore. He also responded by cynically instigating and supplying a deadly insurrection in the eastern Donbas region, a civil war that had/has gone on for 8 years, with the usual sorts of escalation as Ukraine attempted to deal with it. This civil war by Putin’s proxies was the cause of any new weapons systems being sent to Ukraine, which Obama was initially unwilling to do (so much for that “poking”).
The idea that some “war machine” was being “installed” in Ukraine (whose machine? NATO’s? The US of A’s?) is laughable and can only be described as Putin Apologia. There is no legal (or moral) justification for Putin’s invasion and destruction of Ukraine, and any claim that Putin has to invade to “defend” Russia or had actual security concerns from Ukraine (or NATO, for that matter) is preposterous. He has not a single plausible or justifiable basis for his invasion.
Lastly, it is Putin who is rattling his nuclear sword by “activating” his nuclear defense capabilities, not NATO or the US. You can look for all the “poking” on this you want, but you won’t find it, unless the EU (very sensibly) closing its air space off to Russian air travel is deemed more “poking”. All this really means is that Putin is finding that his miscalculation has backed him into a corner. But I guess your theory, WHD, is that nothing can be done to oppose this illegal invasion by the rest of the world (no matter how much a product of Putin’s willfulness), because it will just “Poke the Bear’s Eye” further. There’s a word for that: appeasement.
This is as clear an example of an unjust, illegal war of aggression as you will find, and if Mearshimer is arguing to the contrary, then he just looks foolish.
Your argument is just a restating of the foreign policy establishment narrative, the same establishment that has abandoned Afghanistan to famine, as if it does not exist, among a very long list of atrocities.
Well, thanks, WHD, but that’s not much of a refutation. You know you’re in trouble when you immediately change the topic (“abandoned Afghanistan…”)
Just because you don’t like the “establishment narrative” doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate. Unless “the establishment” can never be correct, which I guess is the operative thinking here, when one takes the wayward Glenn Greenwald as some herald of truth.
But it’s not really a surprise that anti-(anti-Trump) sentiment has now morphed into anti-(anti-Putin) sentiment. At some point such an attitude comes pretty close to support.
Or maybe the foreign policy establishment of America has a very long history of making a mess of things and yet never suffers any consequence for their incompetency?
Russia counter China?
Maybe Italy, with a larger economy should counter China?
And…
How dare Ukrainians elect a President who does not embrace their “buffer” status. I guess you join comrade Putin for a longing for the good old days of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the rest of Russia’s former subservient buffers.
Are you saying we should risk nuclear confrontation so Ukraine can Join NATO? That seems to fail a basic risk/benefit analysis. It is of zero benefit to us to have the Ukraine in NATO. Do you think planting Raytheon/Lockheed ballistic missiles on Russia’s border would lessen tensions? That fails basic logic and reason.
But this is mostly about emotion, and the emotion seems to lean at least on the left, to crush Russia for this.
Crush Russia?
Russia is doing the crushing here as nearly 1 million Ukrainians have left their homes and belongings to avoid being crushed.
And yes, send all the Russians back to their homeland. How many Nazis had London townhomes during WW2? How is this different than the 1939 invasion of Poland?
Tom Friedman said that every yesterday was the best day of the rest of Purim’s life: He has backed himself into a corner he is incapable of escaping from: Conquer and occupy a country that will resist forever, withdraw and admit a colossal mistake, few face saving options or just be removed by oligarchs hounded by their wives, mistresses, bratty kids as the luxuries of Western life are taken from them.
Notice which country has been most selfless in assisting Ukraine? Poland. From Nazis, to Russians they know better than most what a tyrannical foreign occupation / domination looks like and greatly appreciate their current freedoms.
Would you revoke their NATO membership to appease the “Russian Bear”?
“And yes, send all the Russians back to their homeland.”
Xenophobia is ok then I guess, as long as it isn’t Trump doing it.
How about this
All US citizens in Russia, working, studying, vacationing here by have all their US travel documentation rescinded and are immediately to return to the US
And
All Russian citizens working, studying, vacationing in the US are likewise to immediately return to Russia
Russia will become a larger and colder North Korea. Let’s begin ASAP and avoid that Afghanistan like withdrawal
Nor by any stretch of the imagination can it be said that “the narrative” is “now…turning toward direct conflict in the form of a non fly zone and American troops on the ground”.
That’s not ever gonna happen for abundantly obvious reasons, so please ID who in the US admin is the source of this supposed “narrative” (pie in the sky Ukrainian requests do not count…)
“…sit in a corner,” indeed. They should also wear a dunce cap. Romney is one of only a handful of Republicans on the national scene who merits respect. I still disagree with him often, but “ethical compass” is not a foreign concept to him, and his vote to impeach our would-be dictator was an act of political courage that few in his party, and none of his party colleagues in the Senate, could match.
“ethical compass” it would be nice, but it appears the “R’s with 1 are few and far between, look no further than yesterdays CPAC straw pole! Seems their compass is more like Captain Jack Sparrow’s, points to what they want most, and that sure as H has little to do with ethics!
Obama definitely owes him an apology
For what? Beating him in a fair election?
Obama ridiculed Romney during a 2012 presidential for saying Russia was our number one geopolitical foe. All Obama did during his 8 years was enable Putin to become what he is today. Conveniently forgotten by Dems.
You sure it wasn’t the last 4 years of the T**** bromance that caused his best buddy Putin to do what he is doing now? Sounds about right form this perspective, tried to get rid of NATO, held back on arming the Ukrainians, had his secret un-documented conversations with the “genius” Putin, etc. etc. etc.
Conveniently forgotten by Republicans is the four-year interregnum of an unabashed admirer of Vladimir Putin.
It’s comforting to pretend Trump never happened, but it’s also unrealistic.
Actually Obama owes Romney an apology for making fun of Romney’s statement in a debate about the danger of the Russians. Romney was right, and Obama was wrong.
Ok. I’ll give you that. But I do think that maybe, just maaayyybeee, the intervening president teed things up a bit more for Putin than Obama being wrong about Russia in a debate.
Cory is just operating on the even a stopped clock is right twice a day theory of operation.
Because Romney was wrong about Putin as our biggest foreign policy challenge in 2012 and he is in 2022 he must have been right in 2012…
I question whether Russia was in fact our biggest challenge in 2012 (hindsight is, as they say, 20/20), but whatever.
I can’t remember the last time a conservative had a nice thing to say about Romney. Can we agree he was right about the impeachment, too?
Pretty sure Willard still harbors visions of riding in on a white horse to “rescue” the Republicans and fulfill his personal daydreams of winning the Presidency. Unfortunately the actual actions that might make that a reality (ie convincing enough of his fellows to forcibly evict the traitors from their ranks) remain conveniently outside his capability. Sitting in the corner with a sign reading “reasonable” alternative isn’t gonna cut it.
Democrats and old-guard Republicans view Trump supporters as a sort of third party, to be crushed at all costs. Trump will eventually vanish. If his supporters continue as a potent force (they elected a president, how much more potent is that?) it will be Trump’s most enduring legacy.
If Trump had achieved even a plurality of votes cast it would have been more impressive.
Yes. But electing a president, then nearly re-electing him in defiance of the monied elites, the media, even the country’s intelligence and military apparatus is still pretty impressive.
This is largely revisionist history, at least with respect to the Repub party and “conservative” monied elites. Those interests fell into line right behind Trump after he won the nomination, and certainly when he ran in 2020. And the idea that the traditional media “favored” Hillary Clinton doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny; nor did the “deep state” favor her when one considers FBI-man Comey’s unprecedented intervention a week before the election, as well as his declining to inform the electorate of Trump’s ongoing contacts with and aid from Putin’s intelligence services.
Trump lost the 2020 election rather convincingly as well, although one can conjure up arguments that it was closer in electoral college terms than it appeared. In any event, losing the popular vote by millions in both runs hardly demonstrates Trump’s wonderful strength as a candidate. But why is this being discussed in a thread about Putin’s illegal and unjust invasion of Ukraine?
You’re seeing what you want to see. These powerful interests opposed Trump, and all the Democrats I know were proud of them. As for bringing the issue up, this is really what Mr. Black’s article is about. It’s peppered with Trump’s name.
Fundraising 2020 through November:
Trump 183 M
Biden 118 M
Tell us agin who the monied elites supported?
Like any infestation, they’ll need to be rooted out, I suppose.
With little to lose, they have so far defied all attempts.
Actually seven Republican Senators voted to convict President Trump in the second impeachment trial: Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Pat Toomey.
I have a lot of respect for Senator Romney. In retrospect, I feel bad that I didn’t vote for him when he ran against Barack Obama (although I still like Obama). I was afraid of Romney, thinking he wouldn’t make a good president, but I have really come to admire him in recent years, especially when he was the lone Republican who stood up against Trump in the first impeachment trial. Lately, I’ve really admired Senator Liz Cheney and Congressman Adam Kinzinger who are presently working with Democrats on the Jan. 6th committee, investigating what took place on that horrible day at our nation’s capitol over a year ago.
I’m not ashamed to vote Republican if I believe in the individual who is running for office, although I have always been a registered Democrat, and proud of it. What I can’t understand is the sad fact of good, moral folks who are my friends, who still buy into the Donald Trump train wreck. One of them, a good man and a retired minister, will defend Donald Trump, no matter what comes out in the news about him. I’m confused: I know this friend of mine voted for Mitt Romney against Obama; was a fan of the Bush/Cheney Administration, yet believes Liz Cheney to be wrong now: how is it that no matter what Trump does, this Christian man will believe no wrong of Donald Trump?
As I, too, am a Christian, it really confuses me: do we read the same Bible? I thought so . . .
By the way, The Lincoln Project still seems to be going strong. Has anyone watched “Bloodlines” yet? It was released about a month ago, I believe, but seems eerily prophetic in this hour with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine . . .
No one cares what Mitt Romney says, least of all republicans. He’d be lucky to get 1% of the vote in a primary.
Mitt Romney is maintaining his political viability for the post Trump era. I think of him as the Kurt Georg Kiesinger of American politics.
Every time I hear the “NATO expansion “caused this problem, I am reminded of the blame the victim mindset….a woman was raped because she dressed like a slut, George Floyd deserved his treatment because he was a drug abuser, etc. This mindset is most often expressed by the right wing in politics, society and culture. Russia has tried to impose a puppet leadership in the Ukraine not once, but two times during the past 20 years. Funny, the Ukrainians by themselves threw out these leaders. It is hard to listen to the complaint that the West is poking the Russian Bear in the eye, when the Russian bear , which in reality is the leadership and oligarchy there, have benefitted extensively from the West in the form of petro export wealth, money laundering into various Western countries, and living in lavish lifestyles in Monaco, London, Paris and New York and Miami. Russia under Putin is a corrupt kleptomanic nation and economy. Romney is right, and a few minutes later Dick Durbin was interviewed and he specifically mentioned he agreed with everything Sen. Romney said.
Thanks for this one, Erik: “those who sold their reputations so cheaply during the Trump era should have to sit in a corner for a while before any of their views are taken seriously.” It’s what I’ve been saying ever since it became clear that Trump would not concede his obvious loss, and Republicans blindly followed his lead. We can agree to disagree about tax policy, the proper role of government, all the things liberals and conservatives have always argued about. But Trump supporters (i.e., most of the Republican Party) are no longer engaging in conventional political debate. Every single current Republican candidate for Minnesota governor is unwilling to declare, unconditionally, that Joe Biden is the duly elected President of the United States. This is not “conservative,” it’s social disintegration–the metaphorical equivalent to Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine. As such, I don’t believe they deserve the normal respect of political discourse. Unless–like Mitt, and Liz and Andrew–they are willing to disavow the immorality and illegality of Trump’s assault on democratic norms.
Maybe it’s because we’ve seen the evidence. Evidence that the MSM refuses to show you.
The problem with your “evidence” is that it’s not real. I do not understand how so many Americans are falling into a state which, if diagnosed on an individual basis, would be considered schizophrenia. It’s like some sort of mass psychogenic illness. This is not a dig. I’m truly concerned for the mental health of our nation. It’s worth noting that Hitler preyed upon a similar mindset in Germany when he orchestrated the Holocaust. That didn’t turn out so well for him or many Germans, but it played out in a horrific manner for the Jews and any other group of people who was deemed unfit for the desired German society in the meantime. We should never feel bad for Hitler, we might have some sympathy for the fools who followed him (but not most), but we can’t ever forget that the cost to people other than those who SHOULD have been punished was infinitely higher.
I wouldn’t break any arms patting Romney on the back for being able to recognize the obvious. This idea of celebrating a ability to meet the lowest requirement only highlights how defunct the Republican Party actually is. Look at the comments here that can’t find a coherent narrative? Trump’s arch enemy is making common sense and they’re demanding an apology from Obama instead of denouncing Trump’s affection for Putin. Whatever, let’s move along and have an adult conversation eh?
Senator Romney was perfectly willing to debase himself lobbying to be Trump’s Secretary of State. His “Never Trumping” dissolved pretty quickly when he thought it might give him a shot at taking on Foggy Bottom.
But RB, he’s a MODERATE! The bipartisan fantasy lives! So the guy gets a honorable mention just for showing up.
It’s very easy to find things to blame for any unfortunate turn of events. For myself, I blame a lot what’s gone wrong in recent centuries on the Franco Prussian War of 1871, but that’s just my own version of Critical History Theory. Looking back on even more recent history, it was probably a mistake to expand NATO in the aftermath of the fall of the union which served to feed Russia’s not unjustified paranoia about invasion from the west. But I suspect eventually, fed or not, that paranoia would have reemerged as a factor in Russian politics.