Responding to ISIS and the Syrian Refugee Crisis Is Dividing Policymakers Both in Washington and Moscow

Responding to ISIS and the Syrian Refugee Crisis Is Dividing Policymakers Both in Washington and Moscow

Responding to ISIS and the Syrian Refugee Crisis Is Dividing Policymakers Both in Washington and Moscow

Will the result be a spreading or curtailing of the new US-Russian Cold War?

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussion of the new Cold War. Pointing out that Senator Marco Rubio’s recent statement, “We do not welcome Russia’s assistance against ISIS,” has long reflected bipartisan opinion in Washington, Cohen emphasizes that leading representatives of the Obama Administration have changed their minds and are now exploring President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for Russia to join the military struggle against the Islamic State in Syria. If such a coalition develops, it could ease the US-Russian confrontation over another civil war, the one in Ukraine.

In Moscow, however, Putin’s overture to Washington is not going unchallenged. Some of his own advisers, recalling the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, are warning against any substantial Russian military involvement in Syria, while Putin’s ultra-nationalist opposition is asserting that he will use cooperation with Washington in Syria to “sell out” Russian-backed rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

In addition, high-level officials in Moscow are openly debating whether or not Russia should open its borders to refugees fleeing the fighting in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the US-backed government in Kiev, seizing upon the visit of a NATO delegation, escalated the rhetoric of the Cold War by calling for full NATO membership for Ukraine. As Cohen argued months ago, the new Cold War cannot be confined to Ukraine. As happened during the preceding Cold War, “linkages” are rapidly spreading from Europe to the Middle East.

We cannot back down

We now confront a second Trump presidency.

There’s not a moment to lose. We must harness our fears, our grief, and yes, our anger, to resist the dangerous policies Donald Trump will unleash on our country. We rededicate ourselves to our role as journalists and writers of principle and conscience.

Today, we also steel ourselves for the fight ahead. It will demand a fearless spirit, an informed mind, wise analysis, and humane resistance. We face the enactment of Project 2025, a far-right supreme court, political authoritarianism, increasing inequality and record homelessness, a looming climate crisis, and conflicts abroad. The Nation will expose and propose, nurture investigative reporting, and stand together as a community to keep hope and possibility alive. The Nation’s work will continue—as it has in good and not-so-good times—to develop alternative ideas and visions, to deepen our mission of truth-telling and deep reporting, and to further solidarity in a nation divided.

Armed with a remarkable 160 years of bold, independent journalism, our mandate today remains the same as when abolitionists first founded The Nation—to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, serve as a beacon through the darkest days of resistance, and to envision and struggle for a brighter future.

The day is dark, the forces arrayed are tenacious, but as the late Nation editorial board member Toni Morrison wrote “No! This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

I urge you to stand with The Nation and donate today.

Onwards,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x