Vladimir Putin Archives - Richard M. Langworth

Trump, Russia, and Churchill’s Wisdom

Richard M. Langworth — Thu, 09 Mar 2017 01:04:08 +0000

Published 8 March 2017 on the Daily Caller, under the title “A Lesson on Russia for Trump.” Their title, not mine; I do not presume to offer anyone lessons.

Churchill and Stalin, Moscow, 1942. (The press photo…it wasn’t all smiles.)

“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” —Winston Churchill, 1939

“If Putin likes Trump, guess what, folks, that’s called an asset, not a liability. Now I don’t know that I’m going to get along with Vladimir Putin. I hope I do. But there’s a good chance I won’t.” —Donald Trump, 2017

Russia National Interests

Trump-Churchill comparisons are invidious and silly. After all, we’re not working with the same raw material. But their two statements are oddly congruent. Churchill’s Russian experience has something to offer the President as he embarks on his own attempt—fraught as it may be—at a modus operandi with Mr. Putin.

In the 1930s Churchill had to decide which was the greater threat: Stalin’s Soviet Union, whose tyranny was still confined to its borders; or the Greater German Reich, which had by 1939 swallowed the Saarland, the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia, and was threatening Poland.

Churchill’s study of history held the answer: Britain had always backed the second strongest powers on the European continent: France, of course…and Russia.

“Historic life interests”

Ever the deft rhetorician, Churchill was unafraid to criticize “Soviet” economics, but foresaw the need to appeal to “Russian” national interests in the coming confrontation with Hitler. To paraphrase Churchill, “It cannot be in accordance with the interest or the safety of Russia,” Churchill said in 1939, “that Germany should plant itself upon the shores of the Black Sea, or that it should overrun the Balkan States and subjugate the Slavonic peoples of South-Eastern Europe. That would be contrary to the historic life-interests of Russia.”

Accordingly, earlier in 1939, after Prime Minister Chamberlain had issued a belated guarantee to defend Poland, Churchill cornered Ivan Maisky, the Soviet ambassador. Adopting what today seems almost Trumpist language, he asked the ambassador for his support:

Look here Mr. Ambassador, if we are to make a success of this new policy we require the help of Russia. Now I don’t care for your system and I never have, but the Poles and the Romanians like it even less. Although they might be prepared at a pinch to let you in, they would certainly want some assurances that you would eventually get out.

Maisky liked this blunt approach and conveyed Churchill’s views to Moscow. Alas Churchill was out of power, and Chamberlain—not without reason—regarded Stalin as a thug. He sent low-level negotiators to Moscow, to hint at some vague future agreement. Hitler sent his foreign minister. The resultant Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact left Germany free to attack Poland, and World War II was on.

“Favourable reference to the Devil”

When the two tyrants fell out and Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Churchill, now prime minister, reverted to type, promising Moscow all-out support. An aide reminded him of the dreadful things he’d said about communists. Churchill growled: “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” Again he pursued the main objective: victory.

Churchill’s Russian experience was stony. In the war, he failed to save the Balkans and central Europe from the onrushing Red Army. He did save Greece, and foster a semi-independent Yugoslavia. Given the military situation, it was the best he could do with the prevailing situation.

Of the Russians, he said in 1946: “There is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than weakness, especially military weakness. But he qualified that in 1951: “I do not hold that we should rearm in order to fight. I hold that we should rearm in order to parley.”

It’s Still National Interest

Churchill never abandoned his idea of appealing to national interests. After Stalin’s death in 1953, he urged “a meeting at the summit,” but Eisenhower resisted. Russia might have a new dress, the President declared, but “there was the same whore underneath it.” Even Ike spoke like Donald Trump on occasion.

Well, it cannot be in accordance with the interest or the safety of Russia that ISIS should plant itself upon the shores of the Mediterranean, or that it should overrun Syria and subjugate the Iraqi peoples. That would be contrary to the historic life-interests of Russia. There lies a Churchillian opportunity.

Mr. Trump believes he can work with the Muscovites. So too did Churchill, when his country’s fate hung in the balance. Churchill met with little enough success. But when he did, it was when he dangled “national interest” in front of the Russians.

Brexit: Britannia Waives the Rules

Richard M. Langworth — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:26:12 +0000

Brexit aftermath, June 2016: In voting to leave the European Union, Britain has opted to become another Norway. One of the most prosperous and contented countries in the world, Norway does fine with its own laws, currency, and trade agreements, including a good one with the EU. It is hardly a bad model.

Short-term troubles

The gnashing of teeth over the upset Brexit victory resounds around the world. For awhile, chaos will attend financial markets, and the pound will take a dip (boosting British exports).

The Scots voted against Brexit, though not in the numbers predicted. Many voted “Remain” because they feared Brexit would mean another Scottish independence fracas. Others will complain and demand more autonomy. They would be mistaken to support independence given current oil prices. And they receive a great deal from being part of the UK. The Scots also need to fish. They will come to appreciate regaining control of their own conservation policies.

Nannies and minders

The New Yorker predicted defeat for Brexit and UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, whom they compared to Donald Trump. Farage leads a party with one seat in Parliament. He will not be prime minister. Trump believes (improbably) that he will be president, and his party (if it is his party) holds majorities in Congress. Farage is far more articulate and silver tongued, though the Trumpeters are trying to polish their very rough diamond.

Never mind, the Evening Standard assured its readers, the vote may mean nothing. Brexit will require an Act of Parliament. The EU will have something to say about that. Few MPs are likely to vote against a referendum with the highest turnout in thirty years. The EU bullied the Dutch, Irish and Danes when they showed signs of independence. It is less apt to bully the fifth largest economy. It needs Britain too, after all.

In the end, the argument over Brexit came down to statists vs. libertarians. Statists think the state must regulate every aspect of people’s lives. The proles are too dumb to know what’s best for them. After the vote, the Establishment and the BBC forecast apocalypse: surprise. In 1992, Britain opted out of the Eurozone. The same people predicted a recession and the end of the City of London as a financial mecca. You don’t hear a peep about adopting the euro today. Predicting disaster if they don’t get their way is a common tactic among our respective national nannies.

Using Churchill

Winston Churchill, whose quotations were bent out of all context in the debate, is still being used to lecture Britons. American lectures began with President Obama. (He caused a blip in Brexit polling when he said an independent Britain would go “to the back of the queue.” As the historian Andrew Roberts pointed out, Britain wasn’t at the back of the queue in 1940, or 9/11.Britons bled alongside Americans and others in places like Afghanistan and Kuwait.)

One critique trotted out Churchill’s “Europe Unite” speeches of the early postwar years to lament how the great man’s wisdom was ignored by voters. But isolated quotations, from a time when Churchill saw Franco-German rapprochement as the main need, are not dispositive now.

Churchill’s view

A fair-minded person is obliged to consider: Why, after so many inspiring speeches supporting the concept of European unity in opposition during 1945-50, did Churchill as prime minister (1951-55) prevent British involvement in the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Army, and other projects which led to the European Economic Community, and ultimately the EU?

A clue to what Churchill thought then was his message to his cabinet in 1951. It concerned the Schuman Plan, a single authority to control the production of steel and coal in France and West Germany. On the invitation for Britain to join, Churchill said:

Our attitude towards further economic developments on the Schuman lines resembles that which we adopt about the European Army. We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged with and do not forfeit our insular or commonwealth character. Our first object is the unity and consolidation of the British Commonwealth. Our second, “the fraternal association” of the English-speaking world. And third, United Europe, to which we are a separate closely-and specially-related ally and friend…. —National Archives, CAB 129/48C(51)32. To read more click here.

Churchill’s envisiooned a sovereign Britain linked first to the Commonwealth, second to the Atlantic community (U.S. and Canada), and third to Europe. But that was then, this is now. Churchill never had to contemplate anything like the EU of 2016. Unfair use should not be made of his words.

Wise advice

As a British investor friend said to me, “after the thing matures everything will be fine for the UK.” A Canadian active in business for four decades said, “this is really Britain’s opportunity.” Along those lines I recommend economist Irwin M. Stelzer’s article “Nothing to fear” (Hudson Institute).

“You need six things for a successful economy,” Stelzer wrote his British friends. Whichever way the vote went, he explained, Britain would still have them:

1) A large economy. Britain’s is the world’s fifth largest.

2) The rule of law. “…so that no Vladimir Putin can snatch the fruits of your labour or profits from risk-taking investment.” (Putin approved Brexit, which may not be altogether settling; but that is another story.)

3) The English language in world business.

4) A time zone. “…that allows you to work 24/7 with economies around the world.”

5) World-class businesses in the growing services sector. “Your design firms, law firms, insurers, music businesses are among the world’s best, beating my country’s rivals in many cases.”

6) A vibrant, exciting culture “that attracts the best and the brightest employees of foreign firms. Offer a young investment banker the option of London or Frankfurt, of educating his children at Britain’s fine schools and colleges or having them attend class anywhere else in the EU, and guess where he will choose.”

“All will come right”

After Munich in 1938, Churchill warned “of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless, by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” On 23 June 2016, such a stand was taken.

I’ve visited the UK thirty times since 1974, logging 100,000 miles. Land’s End to the Orkneys, the Hebrides to East Anglia. It has an ability to produce prosperity and contentment in a large, concentrated population. The improvement was palpable after the advent of Margaret Thatcher. I have no doubt that in the end, as Churchill said, “all will come right.”