DAVID STOROBIN: “Rather than the joke it was in the late 1990s, Putin’s Russia of 2008 is a country that matters. It matters in terms of global economy, oil and gas, United Nations, War on Terror and just about every other international issue.
CNN and other Western media likes to portray the Russian people as fools who blindly support Putin and his semi-dictatorial tendencies. But they are not fools. They know that today they are wealthier than ever before in Russian history, and Putin has been their leader responsible for the economic rise…But more than economics, what truly makes Russians support Putin is a restored sense of pride, a sense that their country matters once again for the first time in a generation.”
You may already know State Senate candidate David Storobin is an outlier, a strange fringe type who feels compelled to whitewash_immigrant_bashers and give a forum to justifiably obscure white supremacists like the Afrikaner Independence Movement.
But I bet you didn’t know he was an apologist for the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin.
Before anyone says that Storobin’s views on international affairs should not matter, I have to note (1) it is clear that Storobin’s strange views on international affairs are practically the only thing Storobin really cares about (outside of ending progressive taxation), (2) and it is clear that he sees the State Senate only as a stepping stone for Congress, and (3) his views make him unfit for service in Congress; (4) his views on international affairs shed light on his entire political philosophy; and (5) a lot of his constituents care about Russia, and (6) many of them are militantly anti-Putin.
Storobin’s article,“ Russia’s Nuclear Declaration: A Defense, Not An Attack (first published on Storobin’s “Global Politician” on January 22, 2008) begins with a lovely quote from the Russian Army Chief of Staff, General Yuri Baluyevsky, in which the General articulates a doctrine of preventive nuclear warfare:
"We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand … that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, the use of nuclear weapons."
Now, a normal conventional conservative Republican like Congressman Bob Turner or Congressman Michael Grimm would probably react to such a statement angrily, promising a little pre-emption of our own and denouncing the Appeasement-ocrats for not saying the same.
Storobin does not do this. Instead, he defends Baluyevsky, and his boss, Vladimir Putin.
But not before first engaging in some totally gratuitous racism and sexism about the then-current Clinton/Obama race:
“This announcement was largely ignored by the American media as it debated what’s more important for the next President: the shape of the candidate’s genitals or the color.”
Then comes the defense of the indefensible:
“…Moscow is not trying to threaten the world despite the panic that the word "nuclear" usually provokes. The General's statement is also not particularly extraordinary. Russia’s new stance is not a threat to the West, much less the beginning of a new Cold War.”
Whew, and I was worried.
But not Storobin, who quotes with approval a young Russian’s defense of Putin.
“He restored our pride. Russia was an international joke. Nobody treated us as equals before, but now we matter.”
This sound eerily like defenses once heard about Hitler.
Storobin seems compelled to defend, or at least rationalize Putin's every move.
Let me be clear, I am not criticizing Storobin for merely expressing a disagreement with some aspect of US foreign or defense policy. There are some who would bait a candidate for doing that—although, in my experience, the people who would do so are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans.
Still, it can be a bit jarring to read everything he says.
Individually, some of the statements are defensible. Collectively, they amount to a love letter to a despot:
"But Putin’s Russia also became more assertive in promoting its interests, rather than just being America’s little lap dog.”
“During the Ukrainian elections in 2004, Americans tried not only to promote Viktor Yuschenko, but to turn him into a “candidate of the West” to the point where some have even traveled to Kiev. Unlike in Kosovo a half decade earlier, this time Russia fought back with all the vigor of a cornered bear, the same way Washington would fight an attempt to establish a pro-Russian, anti-American regime in Canada. The result was Moscow’s first major victory on the international scene in at least 20 years.”
“It was now Moscow’s time to branch out of the borders of the former USSR.
At times Russia is fighting just for the sake of fighting. Like a picked-on school boy who just took a self-defense course, Moscow felt the need to assert itself by poking the West in the eye as a show of strength.
Putin realized that no country will choose to ally with Russia over the United States if they have a choice. He thus made a decision to embrace the enemies of the West such as Iran, Syria and Venezuela. In the United Nations, Russia made things difficult for the United States in order to show that it is a country that must be paid attention to.”
Storobin not only rationalizes the indefensible, seems to enjoy every minute, while at the same time trying to make light of the threat.
“This Russian alliance with the enemies of the West is unlikely to hold for a long time, however. While some countries, such as Venezuela, are of no long-term importance to Moscow and could be either a friend or an enemy…”
He also minimizes Russia’s footsie with Iran, arguing the countries are natural enemies. Strangely, it seems to elude him that it is this very threat which motivates the alliance and makes it far more dangerous.
Storobin then goes on to greater rationalizations still:
“Kremlin pretends to help Tehran inside and outside the United Nations only to play Washington for a fool. Americans are paying Russians to do exactly what they want to do anyway, while at the same time making Moscow seem like a major player on the world scene.”
He then affirms Russia’s right to impose its will upon others, even with pre-emptive use of nukes:
“In declaring itself willing to defend its allies, with nuclear weapons if needed, Moscow did not intend to tell the world that it wants a new Cold War…[this ] is no difference an American defense of its allies in Western Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and many other countries.”
“Ten years ago, Bill Clinton unnecessarily provoked the Russian people by going back on his agreement with Moscow… George W. Bush must not make the same mistake…And liberal Jewish organizations must remember that should they support [Russia's enemies], Russia and its allies would be fully justified in aiding Hamas in Gaza as payback.”
And if that doesn’t bother you, perhaps Storobin’s full throated defense of Putin’s poaching players from the National Hockey League will.