Russia Expert Stephen Cohen: Trump Wants to Stop the New Cold War, But the American Media Just Doesn’t Understand. Video and Transcript. Real Clear Politics, July 30, 2016. YouTube. Also here, here.
Transcript:
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN: When looking to blame someone for the cyberattack [against Hillary Clinton and the DNC], Russia was more than convenient. Is this a new cold war or political pot-stirring? Does this accusation have any basis in fact, and if not, could it cause real harm? Here to discuss is Stephen F. Cohen, American scholar of Russian studies at both Princeton and New York Universities. Professor Cohen, does Vladimir Putin indeed have a dog in our U.S. [election]?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN: When looking to blame someone for the cyberattack [against Hillary Clinton and the DNC], Russia was more than convenient. Is this a new cold war or political pot-stirring? Does this accusation have any basis in fact, and if not, could it cause real harm? Here to discuss is Stephen F. Cohen, American scholar of Russian studies at both Princeton and New York Universities. Professor Cohen, does Vladimir Putin indeed have a dog in our U.S. [election]?
STEPHEN
F. COHEN: Vladimir Putin wants to end the “New Cold War” – and so do I.
Let me
say, I have no ties to the Trump campaign or the Clinton campaign. But if I
were to write your headline for you today, I tried on the way down here, I
couldn't fit it on the front page, but it would go like this:
“We’re in a new and more dangerous Cold War
with Russia.”
We’re
approaching a Cuban Missile Crisis nuclear confrontation with Russia, both
along Russia’s borders and possibly over Syria. There is absolutely no
discussion, no debate, about this in the American media – including, forgive
me, on CNN.
Then
along comes (unexpectedly) Donald Trump, who says something that suggests he
wants to end the new Cold War, cooperate with Russia in various places. What we
used to call detente, and now –astonishingly—the media is full of what only can
be called neo-McCarthyite charges that he is a Russian agent, that he is a
Manchurian candidate, and that he is Putin’s client.
So the
real danger is what’s being done to our own political process.
This is
a moment when there should be, in a presidential year, a debate.
Because
Mrs. Clinton’s position on Russia seems to be very different [than Mr. Trump’s],
has been for a long time.
Trump
speaks elliptically. You’ve got to piece together what he says. But he seems to
want a new American policy toward Russia. And considering the danger, I think
we as American citizens, deserve that debate, and not what we are given in the
media today, including on the front page of the New York Times.
I end
by saying, that this reckless branding of Trump as a Russian agent, most of it
is coming from the Clinton campaign and they really need to stop.
SMERICONISH:
Okay. I don’t know where to begin in unpacking all that you just offered to us.
But I guess I’ll start as follows. As one who can’t match your credentials,
here’s what I see from the outside looking in. I see Donald Trump having said
to the New York Times, just within
the last ten days, that he’s not so sure he would stand with NATO allies, and I’m
paraphrasing, he would want to know whether they would be pulling their own
weight. The import of his comments seems to suggest he could provide Putin with
unfettered, undeterred access to the Baltic states –whose independence he
resents. So it all seems to fit, therefore, that Putin would have a dog in this
fight, would want to see Donald Trump win this election so that he, Putin,
could do as he pleases, in that part of the world. CNN is covering that. I have
to defend the network in that regard. But why does that not all fit, and why
does it not all fit in the headline in today’s New York Times, which says Russian spies said to have hacked
Clinton’s bid.
COHEN: “Said
to have.” Said to have. That’s not news, that’s an allegation. James Clapper. I
don’t know who hacked. Everybody hacks everybody. I mean, we hacked into
Chancellor Merkel’s cell phone. We learned that from Snowden. The Israelis
hack, the Americans hack, the Chinese hack. Everybody hacks. The point is, and
I know you said it, not to defend it, but as a provocation, that let’s take the
position you just set out. That Putin wants to end the independence in Baltic
states. There is no evidence for that. None whatsoever.
The
point is, is that on the networks – and I’m not blaming CNN, and there’s none
on any network. There is none in the New
York Times.
I am
old enough to remember that during the last Cold War, all these issues were
debated in that you had a proponent to each point of view. But you have now got
accusations, both against Putin, both against Trump, which needed to be
debated.
The
most – let’s go back to what you said – Trump said about NATO. Trump said early
on, he wanted to know, 60 years after its foundation, what was NATO's mission
today.
100
policy wonks in Washington since the end of the Soviet Union, 25 years ago,
have asked the same question. Is NATO an organization in search of a mission?
For example, it’s a mission for the last 20 years was to expand ever closer to
Russia. So people have now asked why isn't it fighting international terrorism?
That's a legitimate question --but we don’t debate it. We don't ask it.
We just
say, oh, Trump wants to abandon NATO.
I don’t
defend Trump. Trump raises questions. And instead of giving answer to the
substance of the question, we denounce him as some kind of Kremlin agent. That’s
bad for our politics, but still worse, given the danger we’re not addressing
it.