Tuesday, 10 January 2017

tiny don

Though I feel at times that the outcome of the US election was more due to voter apathy rather than tugging enthusiasm or manipulation plied by foreign influence—and the US has done more than its fair share of nation-building, and Russia may have chosen to attack Clinton over the embarrassing revelations of the Panama Papers that she helped bring to light, I’d never dismiss the curdling effects of subverting the work of government to outside forces.
There’s more than enough corruption and lobby-interest that state-actors are beholden to already. Possibly those who called Trump the Manchurian Candidate weren’t that far off the mark, but until or unless one can connect the money, something about the scenario doesn’t strike me as wholly strategic. As much as the US is still being propelled forward on the fumes of exceptionalism, America can’t call itself a Super Power without acknowledging the same for its once and former arch-nemesis, as both are fraught with the same post-industrial and image problems—which flatters neither side. That old antagonism didn’t just sublimate and there’s still animosity and not much room at the top, and Putin has drawn support from vast swathes of the Russian population in part because of the struggle against Western powers. If the US and NATO partner states simply conceding to Russian demands, would the people continue to suffer Putin as their leader.  Don’t the two need each other to pin the blame on?