Mr.Casey Michel’s essay is not quite as persuasive as it might be, although his commentary is not without it’s merits, in convincing the Foreign Policy elite of his virtues.
Although this paragraph is not surprising, but what follows this paragraph is the cynicism of a Cold War Hack like has been Strobe Talbott:
‘After all, this isn’t some war of religious schism or broader ethnic demarcation, as the Crimean War or the break-up of Yugoslavia presented. Nor is it a war to retain Russia’s territorial integrity, as in Chechnya. This is a war within Orthodoxy, within Slavdom—and the Russian populace, by and large, will not have loved ones die for it.’
‘A war within Orthodoxy, within Slavdom’? : a religious/cultural war? Or a territorial/ethnic dispute, a hold over from Soviet times: creating political doubt, uncertainty is a Neo-Con strategy.
That elite is equal to a herd of independent minds that brought us the Ukrainian Coup: Victoria Nuland, Jeffrey Pyatt, and of course Susan Rice and Samantha Power. The bungling Neo-Cons and their R2P allies. Mr. Michel must prove that he is material for promotion to one of those top spots reserved for the propaganda apologists for the floundering, but still quite lethal, American National Security State. He acquits himself with a certain careerist aplomb!
Instead of this nearly competent essay seek out Mr. Wolfgang Ischinger’s fear mongering essay at The Financial Times at the link:
Mr. Ischinger brings a level sophistication and polish to the demonization of Putin, in the more restrained rhetorical environment of the ultra-respectable Financial Times.
Both essays share in common the lead character of Putin The Terrible and/or Putin as The New Stalin, with the added dimension, that we as readers have, of that leaked Pentagon document that ‘proves’ Putin suffers from Aspergers. How unfortunate that this nugget was unavailable to our two scribblers!