The Russian Non-Reset

I'm reminded a bit of that saying "The more things change, the more they stay the same," in light of recent events. Also, the buzzword "multiculturalism" seems to have fallen out of favor, but it's worth reviewing its ideological meaning and its literal meaning.

Jump back to 2009. The story went something like the following. The Obama administration was coming into office and he was supposed to be the master orator and the transformative quasi-messianic figure. With simply a silver-tongued speech he could stop the seas from rising, the global temperature from warming, and heal the international relationships of the USA. After the disastrous W. Bush administration, the US's standing in the world was ruined - including that with Russia. W. Bush and company were too much of a rowdy, rude, bumpkin group who had wasted good will for the USA. The right-wingers had tended to demonize Russia and were still hung up on that Cold War thing, which was so full of jingoistic nationalism that it claimed the American people and the USSR were "enemies." But the much more sophisticated view of things shows how people everywhere are really no different, and we and all our global leaders really just want the same things. If we have an enemy, it's simply because we haven't dialoged correctly. Or if hostility remains, it's because of some national sin of the USA or is a just reaction to some wrong the USA committed upon them. Everything revolves around us. We have moved into a new progressive paradigm in which we are post-nationalistic, and our obvious universal values must now be meshed together with our diverse global-thinking leaders. Away with those narrow-minded nitwits like Mitt Romney who would later foolishly claim in a presidential debate that Russia was "the main foreign policy adversary of the USA." Ha, what a dummy. Let's gather around him. Place a dunce cap atop Romney's head and point and laugh at such a ridiculous suggestion. Hey, the 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back.

However, there's good news. The strained Russian-American relationship can easily be fixed. With the bumbling W. out and Obama in, things can be "Reset." Simple as that. Fortunately, we have the eminently qualified Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. She would later go on to be the most qualified candidate ever, and would ever be, to run for US president. Her formidable skills with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov proved to be a stellar success. A clever idea of doing a press conference with a conspicuous red Reset Button did just the trick. Words and a clever gimmick overcame realpolitik. Or did it? Was this really what was going on in 2009, or something else?

I recall some contrary details. The "Russian Reset Button" incident has largely been forgotten nowadays (except by us types). It was also glossed over by the American press of the time. It wasn't a success. Far from it. It was a clumsy flub that exposed the ignorance of the incoming administration and the lack of competency of the US State Department. Firstly, the "Reset Button" used with Sergei Lavrov included the word "reset" in Russian, or at least that's what Hillary and the State Department thought. But no, or "nyet," I suppose. Apparently, Hillary couldn't muster anyone in State fluent in Russian. The word they printed on the button translates as "Overcharge." Well, I guess screw that Mark Twain bit about the difference between lighting and lighting bug. Press on with our Overcharged-Reset button with all smiles for the mass of cameras. The video of Hillary presenting the gift-boxed Reset Button to Lavrov on behalf of Obama/Biden is classic, linked here. Hillary tells Lavrov they "worked hard to get it right;" he immediately tells her, "You got it wrong." Yep. We are subsequently treated to Hillary's iconic nervous tick of breaking out in awkward cackling laughter when she's in a bind and has nothing good to say and can't compose herself. Lavrov has a much different tone in his laugh. I can't help but guess he was thinking, "Oh, we are going to totally have our way with you naive babes in the woods. Crimea is ours soon." The awkward cackling laughter continues from Hillary.

I find the incident informative, not just an amusing gaffe. Having a State Department with people who are fluent in the languages of important countries and a greater than surface level understanding of those countries should not be an unreasonable staffing goal. Perhaps we could add a few more qualifications while we're at it. I prefer a more cagey, shrewd diplomat. If State can't even translate a single word for a PR stunt, then one has to wonder what more important things they are missing.

Jump to the 2024 presidential campaign. Trump gave the impression that ending the Russia-Ukraine war would be as simple

and straightforward as pushing the Staples Easy Button. Dusting off the Overcharge Button wouldn't be required. Plus, instead of Hillary, perhaps we could have a real estate guy named Steve Witkoff do the press conference. Trump said that he could end the war with a phone call. That's on brand for him. I also think it's a pretty good campaign sales pitch that is memorable for voters. However, how much of the "phone call" hyperbole is truly what he believed, and how much of that is wishful thinking based on misperceptions? I am not sure what the ratio is, but I think it's a combination of the two.

With the phone calling business, it seems like Putin is more of the mind "I'll call you, you don't call me." Maybe our people will contact your people. Or not. We'll see. When ending a serious conflict, you need something a bit more solid than Carly Rae Jepsen's flippant pop song "Call Me Maybe." And, like trite relationships, the side that is in the weaker position is typically more needy and willing to stand by or be "more flexible." Let's hope the line is not as dead as when a certain Benghazi phone call was made.

Mark Steyn had a great line back when liberals talked about multiculturalism and pre-DEI times. He said roughly, "Multiculturalism absolves you from knowing anything about other cultures." But be sure to feel "warm and fluffy" about it. Culture is just superficial dress, music, or neat, new, spicy food. Beyond that, there's no point in learning much since everything is the same, or will be in the near future once American conservatives can be overcome.

I believe that even if we are not very worldly, we should still have a basic understanding of the fact that multiple cultures literally exist which predate the notion of multiculturalism. Yes, there have been in the past, and still are today, distinct cultures. You don't need to be fluent in Russian to know this truth. Sometimes they mix like oil and water. In addition, not everything revolves around the USA. One big mistake American liberals routinely make is underestimating foreign peoples and countries. There are, in fact, other peoples in the world who have their own agency and motivations. They aren't simply reactionary to the USA. Russia is no different in this regard. I think the Cold War American leadership understood this fact better than our current elite and managerial class.

Oh, but I heard Russia has inexpensive groceries, and I got an uninterrupted 40-minute crash course in Russian history and how Ukraine is a phony country. Instead, Ukraine is purely a NATO puppet operated by Nazis and run by a Jew. Perhaps we can get a real, honest history to back this up; invite Darryl Cooper to enlighten us. Perhaps Winston Churchill is to blame for the Ukraine-Russia war for providing guns and materials to the USSR during WW2.

Yeah, so I've noticed an issue on the political right, too, regarding Russia and a few other things. I'm generally conventional in my right-of-center view of the USA when it comes to foreign policy. Opinions can vary, but you gotta be grounded in reality of some sort. Some popular commentators on the right have unfortunately issued some strong opinions, and have either not done the work reading up on a subject or have maybe drunk some spiked Kool-Aid. Some are perhaps just career influencers who need to drive traffic to make a good living. Tucker seems like an affable guy and has had some interesting takes, but I have been dumbfounded by some recent material. In a slightly different track, there is Candace Owens with her "[Expletive] Ukraine" position. Just because a take is "hot" and drives clicks, doesn't mean it's insightful. I don't follow her, but apparently she gets millions of followers. From the foreign comments I've heard from her, I get the impression she has a shallow grasp of things. Limited historical knowledge. Kanye West is also not the most stable of individuals to do your promos with either. That's an association I would rather not have in the conservative opinion-making movement. So on the right we have to try to avoid being gullible and taken for suckers in foreign affairs, as the left so frequently has been.

I think enough information has come out to show that Ukraine is the B side of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Ukraine is hurting bad, and a prolonged conflict favors Russia. The American legacy media has largely shielded the general American public from the challenges and setbacks Ukraine has had in the war after its incredible initial defense from the Russian invasion. For Ukraine to survive as an independent country, it will need more than its flag hung as a vanity decoration. Also, the Ukraine conflict has exposed the limitations of the US industrial base, which should alarm those who care about a strong American national defense. The US military and industrial capacity is in a bit of a pickle at the moment. Long-term structural deficits don't help our long-term security efforts either. We can't be in denial about these things. Yes, there are certainly valid criticisms on the right regarding the Ukraine situation, but throwing these beleaguered people to Russia doesn't make sense if you believe in a world geared more toward free states. Just because the USA has problems doesn't mean we shouldn't care about our national interest abroad, too. I don't see shaming NATO members and giving them a jolt into doing more as a negative, despite what the media says. It's not "attacking NATO" either. Rather, the opposite.

I'm generally supportive of the basic ideas of 'Peace and Deterrence through Strength', 'not getting bogged down in foreign conflicts with no strategic outlook', 'avoiding unnecessary conflict', and the like. However, we find ourselves in the middle of a conflict. You can't undo what's already been done. We can't undo the hasty Afghan pullout or the subsequent Russian invasion. All of this was within Biden's permissible limits. What is the outcome you prefer? What is likely best for the USA? For Western Civilization? Somehow, I doubt it is Russia completely having its way in Ukraine with the help of China and Iran.

Hillary Clinton was pretty good at resetting the opinion of the loyal Democrat voting base regarding Russia. Opposing Russia went from a knuckle-dragging, out-of-date right-winger position to the vanguard of progressivism because Republicans were Putin's Russian stooges. All it took was a dossier and planted stories. However, conflating a reset of Democrat opinion and a reset of other countries and conflicts would be a categorical error.

One thing is clear, though: There's no magical "Reset Button" in the real world. Don't be fooled into thinking there is one.