Exit Strategies

START and What Really Matters

I'm wary of offering any unequivocal endorsement of "New START," the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia that was ratified on Wednesday, or anything else that comes out of the American foreign policy-making establishment. That said, the knee-jerk reaction against it by the neoconservatives and their evangelical and conservative-yahoo underlings--who give their undying and unconditional support to a small country in the Middle East and yet view a great White, Christian nation in the east as a perpetual enemy--tells you all you need to know about "conservatism" in America. 

"Patroon" writes at Conservative Heritage Times, 

From the election returns a few weeks ago it is obvious from the the exit polling to the demographic breakdowns to the actual results themselves that the GOP has been established as the white, Christian party whether they like it or not.  They can display all the tokens they want but we all know who is on the dollar bill.

So given this fact, why on earth do many Republican politicians still regard Russia as the same enemy they were back in the Cold War?  Why do they stare into the faces of the white Russians, whose golden domes of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior glistens in the Moscow sun, and only see the enemy.

Regardless of the merits of the START treaty, the opposition to it in the context of Russian relations is just baffling. Neocon opposition I can understand but not the opposition of everyone else on the Right.

Here’s a nation which can be a valuable ally, which suffers the same malignancy of Islamic terrorism and has sen seen many dead from it and is a nation which has similar historical traits as the U.S. in some areas.

Daniel Larison at Eunomia debunks a lot of arguments against a simple nuclear proliferation treaty and Pat Buchanan wonders why the GOP is risking a new cold war? But cynically I wonder if the Russians were Dispensationalists  instead of Orthodox Christians, would their be such push back from the GOP.  Such “other” Christians, particularly in Middle East, were offered no protection by the Bush Administration either in Iraq or in Israel (certainly not getting anything from the Obama Administration) despite the troubles U.S. foreign pyolic caused them. Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Macedonia were abandoned in the face of Albanian irredentism.  Now Republicans in the Senate wish to do the same to another group of Orthodox Christians. I ‘d like to know the reasons why.

A commenter on the CHT blog recounts a meeting between British Prime Minister James Callahan and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev in the late '70s. Brezhnev concluded the conference by remarking to his counterpart, "Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." This blunt phrase startled the prime minister and interpreter alike, who we're too caught up in Cold War vagaries and the class politics of the Labour Party to think of something as basic as preserving one's bio-cultural heritage.

Russians have been far wiser than Anglo-Saxons in this regard. Mikhail Gorbachev took up Brezhnev's call and envisioned a geopolitics centered around "Our Common European Home," Europe from Brittany to the Bering, a racial bloc in which the United States and Canada would play a role. (Due to mass immigration into the two North American powers, this latter aspect is quickly becoming inconceivable.)

How different would our foreign policy be if we made it on the basis of what really matters?