Besides a short and decent analysis of international affairs and the future of the US empire, the article makes the much-needed point that Trump more closely resembles Yeltsin than he does Putin.
The article does not go into enough detail on this point, but it nevertheless provides a clear antidote to much of the nonsense that is coming out of Democratic-aligned media organs as of recently, which consequently, contributes to the obfuscation and the Trump-obsessing that characterizes the perpetual dysfunction of our national discourse, also pointed out by the article.
What seems like a relatively trivial comparison actually has the result of yielding a richer understanding of global affairs, making possible an anticipation of the future which may be tenuous, but that is not actively misleading the American population into all sorts of self-destructive avenues. Of course, I'm going to be one of the last people willing to serve a ringside seat, coaching and pepping up a battered US empire whose collapse will be a net positive for much of the world.
Much energy goes into comparing Trump with Putin, in order to illustrate the rise of right wing populist and nationalist entities around the world. We're not talking about a creative observation of connection here; Trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration for the leader's authoritarian leanings in particular. But this comparison does more to obfuscate than reveal.
Somehow, Putin's mass popularity in that country is attributed to a nebulous mix of state-dominated propaganda and a cult of personality, and a people with agency - who are presented with an unsatisfying menu of shitty choices - are reduced to a population of authoritarian, Putin-worshiping automatons.
What is repeatedly left out - and not without reason - is the wave of privatization and deregulation that Yeltsin encouraged during his reign, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. While selling off everything that wasn't bolted down in that nation to various oligarchs, the perpetually drunk and unhinged Yeltsin (read Trump's disposition and governing style in general) made good friends with US leaders like the first Bush and Clinton, who were eager to secure for their business friends control of or at least participation in various national resources, including oil fields, which were among the most coveted. The felled nation was turned into a massive looting opportunity.
The private evisceration of the Russian people rivaled that of their oppression under the Soviet Union, so much so that probing the matter has indicated a nostalgia for the old Soviet Union, a nostalgia that not even Putin's state capitalism could banish, though he certainly attempted to emulate some of the old regime. As evidenced by his sustained popularity indicators, his efforts don't necessarily amount to nil.
Back to the turn of the century, this is the backdrop with which Putin came to power. His nationalist instincts lead him to actually punish and throw in jail the most corrupt oligarchs. Of course upon actually "draining the swamp" he ushered in another form of corruption more favorable to his own power, but it was a corruption that was at least less exploitative than before. Putin recognized that national power depended on not completely pulverizing one's population, and instead of tearing away all of their social safety nets, providing at least basic health care, education, and housing resources. Who would have thought?
It is a testament to the degraded state of national discourse, and global affairs for that matter, that one has to go about defending Putin. Much like the Mafia moving in and taking control of a blighted neighborhood, when someone is forced to clean up the mess, you're going to get what you get.
But Russia is essentially a petrostate, and the low global oil prices have strained that nation's population. Combined with perpetual sanctions on the part of Western powers, the threatened state is taking more aggressive foreign policy measures to secure its interests.
Meanwhile Trump blossoms into a US version of Yeltsin, selling away the republic and feeding the American people to the wolves, while promising to do the opposite, at least for the whiter, more privileged segments of the population. It could be that one day he will grow up to be an authoritarian dictator, much like his Russian hero, but it doesn't seem that his personality or his competence could pull off such a transformation.
What is more likely is that someone with that ability will rise after the Trump administration is done wrecking the empire. The national humiliation and desire for rejuvenation will prove to be a dangerous instinct in the face of these foreign affairs. And Putin, already bristling at the rebukes of Western nations, will find increasingly nationalist and closed societies flexing their muscles in his face, pursuing throwback mercantilist policy and racing to secure the meager resources left on the planet.
Admittedly, it could all go very differently, and I really have no idea what will happen. However, mapping out such a timeline of events does allow us to think more clearly about the moving parts that actually make up our global politics. The Democratic establishment would much rather paint Trump as neo-Hitler, and Putin perhaps as neo-Stalin, and imagine that the two are really working closer together than what is probably likely, than to actually contend with the failings of this country's political establishment in general, and its fealty to rapacious oligarchs.
Such a failure may bring us face to face with an actual bogeyman or two, bogeymen which necessarily emerge from collective failings, and who don't necessarily pop out of thin air like the Satans of the fundamentalist Christian imagination.
