HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Clinton fears efforts to ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:13 AM

Clinton fears efforts to 're-Sovietize' in Europe

Source: Associated Press

DUBLIN (AP) U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Thursday about a new effort by oppressive governments to "re-Sovietize" much of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, taking particular aim at Russia for its crackdown on democracy and human rights groups just hours ahead of critical talks with that country's foreign minister.

...

"There is a move to re-Sovietize the region," Clinton lamented.

"It's not going to be called that. It's going to be called customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that," she said, referring to Russian-led efforts for greater regional integration. "But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it."

...

Clinton said there is a concerted effort to eliminate both American and international assistance for human rights advocates.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-fears-efforts-sovietize-europe-111645250--politics.html



Is this 1952 or 2012? "Liberal internationalism" = neo-conservatism = McCarthyism.

40 replies, 5237 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Clinton fears efforts to 're-Sovietize' in Europe (Original post)
David__77 Dec 2012 OP
Mass Dec 2012 #1
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #8
LiberalEsto Dec 2012 #29
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #2
malthaussen Dec 2012 #3
iamthebandfanman Dec 2012 #4
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #5
ReRe Dec 2012 #6
David__77 Dec 2012 #9
Daniel537 Dec 2012 #20
kelliekat44 Dec 2012 #32
Beacool Dec 2012 #12
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #7
David__77 Dec 2012 #10
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #11
Beacool Dec 2012 #13
David__77 Dec 2012 #16
Kolesar Dec 2012 #39
Daniel537 Dec 2012 #22
leveymg Dec 2012 #30
John2 Dec 2012 #38
Politicub Dec 2012 #14
David__77 Dec 2012 #17
Politicub Dec 2012 #18
Daniel537 Dec 2012 #23
Politicub Dec 2012 #24
Daniel537 Dec 2012 #26
JVS Dec 2012 #15
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #19
Daniel537 Dec 2012 #21
madrchsod Dec 2012 #25
Daniel537 Dec 2012 #27
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #28
SamKnause Dec 2012 #31
pampango Dec 2012 #33
David__77 Dec 2012 #34
YOHABLO Dec 2012 #35
David__77 Dec 2012 #36
John2 Dec 2012 #40
DeSwiss Dec 2012 #37

Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:18 AM

1. "re-sovietize" ??? I could have understood recreate the Russian Empire

The US certainly cannot tolerate some other country, entity becomes the leading actor and influence in some part of the world (:sarcasm, but the term "soviet" refers to something very precise and it is certainly not happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:01 AM

8. The Russian empire wasn't based on a legal fiction of supposedly

independent states.

Moreover, these are very much the same states that formed the USSR. The Kremlin is trying to get the band back together again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:19 PM

29. Not if the Estonians can help it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:22 AM

2. Bet she's warming the hearts of aging cold warriors everywhere with that term

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:24 AM

3. Guess we shouldn't have made fun of those GOP foreign policy advisors after all...

... the USSR IS Public Enemy Number 1!

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:34 AM

4. Ahw geez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:35 AM

5. I think we can all agree the Soviet Union was a terrible thig.

Any attempt to recreate it would be just awful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:53 AM

6. Do SOSs ever observe what's going on in their own countries?

If she would look back over her shoulder towards, say, the state of Michigan, she might be alarmed. Or if she looked towards NYC, she might see something happening there as per education. Does she need to look in her own background?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:01 AM

9. Well, I found it interesting when the Bush admin. promoted "union rights" in Iraq.

You had Bush administration people talking about the rights to collective bargaining and right to form unions in Iraq (under the occupation), and yet of course waged a war against unions at home.

But, it is true that from Dulles to Kissenger to Clinton, the position of secretary of state has been to try to conduct cold, geopolitical power plays to serve US domination. Some of us might hope for a new politics and more humble and peaceful foreign policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:48 PM

20. We support things overseas that we never do at home.

Nationalized health care, infrastructure spending, adequate housing for the poor. I remember reading Bush's plan for a post-Castro Cuba. It sounded like the second coming of the New Deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:49 PM

32. Just like Reagan did in Poland and than squashed the Air Traffic Controllers here. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:27 AM

12. The answer is no.

Domestic policy is not in her portfolio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:00 AM

7. Yes, I'm sure Vladimir Putin has no intent to dominate his neighbors there.

Pure of heart, old Pooty Poot is.

I mean, when has Russia ever engaged in such behavior, other than always?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:08 AM

10. In other words, "John Bolton was right."

His project was always to oppose contemporary "Sovietization" in Europe, and, laughably, "Cubanization" in Latin America. NATO, of course, in the view of Bolton and Clinton, is not an institution of domination.

What's interesting here is that Clinton is opposing economic and not political integration. She consciously sees Eurasian economic development as a THREAT to US national interests if it occurs outside the US-led framework. This has nothing to do with "human rights" or ideology in any normal sense. Saudi Arabia is great, Russia is bad...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:24 AM

11. NATO does not exist to allow one state to subjugate other members.

It collectively exercises power against non-members and that can be described as domination, but it does not exist to allow the US to dominate Germany the UK and Turkey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:31 AM

13. Quit saying "Clinton" as if she's operating in a vacuum.

She represents the president and this is US policy. Besides, who in Eastern Europe wants to return to the way things were when they were under the domination of the Soviet Union?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:23 PM

16. Indeed, "who in Eastern Europe wants to return to the way things were?"

That is why this McCarthyite meme of "re-Sovietization" is especially preposterous.

You give Clinton too little credit - she does not merely function as adjunct of the will of the executive.

She has demonstrated a harsh, ideologically dogmatic diplomacy, and I'm hopeful that a replacement will be selected that is more collegial and restrained in diplomatic pronouncements.

I do wish her a good retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:58 AM

39. That's silly...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:52 PM

22. Lol, did i miss something?

Are you seriously saying the Soviet Union is coming back into existence? Politics makes people so delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:21 PM

30. "Saudi Arabia is great, Russia is bad" That's been the Bush-Clinton program going back to the '80s.

Hasn't wavered narily an inch from that focused vision of the world and choice of partners. Pay to play. Not even 9/11 could shake that partnership bound by control over the world's wealth and oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:48 AM

38. The U.S.

 

reminds me of the Roman Empire. We have a presence in every country in the World except five. Compare this to those in our Government claiming we are spending too much on Social Security and Medicare versus our military spending in the name of U.S. interests. Is our interests, to maintain our empire? I suggest we cut the spending to maintain our empire. We still have maintained over 50 thousand troops in Germany. Why do we have that many troops in Germany? And what about South Korea? We even maintain a sizable force in Britain and Japan after World War II. Think about it, military presence in over 130 nations versus Social Security and Medicare expenditures. Lets talk about that spending. Congress don't want to go there. And they claim we are going broke? And what about that new defense system to protect Israel? Now we are defending Turkey? How does this spending defend the U.S.? Isn't that what Ran Paul claimed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:43 AM

14. Time for me to learn some history about how the Russian empire was formed the first go around

It would be a tragedy for the independent states to get put back under Russia rule.

I would think one of the first voluntary states to join a reconstituted union would be Hungary based on the politics there as of late.

I have a feeling that this isn't going to go away, and I trust Clinton's judgement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:25 PM

17. Hungary's right-wing government is very anti-Russian.

The Hungarian Socialist Party is the only thing remotely "pro-Russian." And the extreme right-wing anti-Semites are extra anti-Russian due to their intense anti-Communism (they see communism as a "Jewish conspiracy" just like Hitler did).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:28 PM

18. Which is exactly why I need to learn some history and study up on

geopolitics. Hard to have an intelligent conversation without knowing what's what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:52 PM

23. Yeah, her vote for the Iraq war was a really good moment of judgement. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daniel537 (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:04 PM

24. Thank you for your concern

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:08 PM

26. Your most welcome.

Always happy to educate the ill-informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:54 AM

15. Considering domestic drones, Bradley manning, and the hounding of Julian Assange maybe we could...

give some tips on resovietizing. Wouldn't want them to do a shoddy job of it, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:18 PM

19. She fears? Yea, we've got to prop up the military-industrial complex somehow.

 

It's good for the stockholders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:50 PM

21. We always have to have some boogeyman for the MIC to get propped up.

When Condi Rice was saying shit like this she was rightfully ridiculed, but apparently if somebody in our Party says it the threat must be real. Please. Politicians are always looking for a reason to scare people. Its what they do best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:07 PM

25. anyone who would trust putin is a fool

he installed himself as the ruler of russia and jailing anyone who dares object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:09 PM

27. So?

What do you propose? Operation Moscow Storm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:13 PM

28. Yesterday Putin says US seeking new cold war...now THIS? Crikey.

The NeoCons must REALLY be loving current US foreign policy.

Come on team! You can do this. Just run UP the field, not crosswise or backwards!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:34 PM

31. Clinton

Her hypocrisy is sickening.

Get your own house in order Hillary !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:41 PM

33. "Liberal internationalism" is liberal and international and was practiced by FDR and

Woodrow Wilson. Don't allow a perversion of it as practiced by neo-cons to destroy a very liberal tradition.

Conservatives are much more isolationistic than liberals and always have been. Conservatives blocked US participation in the League of Nations and many want us to withdraw from the UN and many other international organization and avoid international commitments.

The countries mentioned in the story are Russia, Belarus and Turkmenistan not exactly paragons of democracy and concern for human rights, but to call it a re-Sovietization seems like a stretch. There are forces in every country that seek to rule without consent of the governed. Each country's citizens have to struggle against the plutocracy in their own country. Nothing is given by those with power without struggle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:56 PM

34. I'll admit I haven't been a Clinton fan...

However, I was honestly surprised by the wording here. I know that certain neo-conservative forces had a little affinity for her, but thought and think that's mainly a one-way street - they hope she would become a modern Scoop Jackson. Here, she sounded the part.

The global projection of ideology under the signboard of "socialism" by the old Soviet Union or the signboard of "democracy" by the US now strikes me as innately cynical. Is it really too much to ask that a state, a country, articulate basic, openly-stated principles for international relations and then stick to them consistently?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:13 AM

35. I really really hope she doesn't run ..

the Clintons are very center-right .. and now she's sounding like the neo-cons .. give me a break. We need someone very progressive in the White House .. not someone who genuflects to the military industrial complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YOHABLO (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:03 AM

36. I don't think she will be a Democratic presidential nominee.

But I also do not think she will run for that. I would prefer her take the advice from Bloomberg and run for NYC mayor. I prefer her in the domestic realm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YOHABLO (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:23 AM

40. You mean someone

 

that thinks like Bernie Sanders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:18 AM

37. ''....taking particular aim at Russia for its crackdown....

...on democracy and human rights groups just hours ahead of critical talks with that country's foreign minister.

- Excuse me!?!?! Frying pan meet skillet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread