Thank you so much for this clearheaded analysis and for your defense of dissent, which is always the first victim of any war or other panic-inducing event.
Just one question: would you consider your article "Russian disinformation" or "Russian misinformation"? JK!
Thank you for your nice comment, with its humorous fillip at the end. Yes, it did occur to us that our words could be quoted by Russian interests and could therefore be seen by some as “proof” that we, too, are merely regurgitating foreign talking points. Circular logic is like that, designed to be inescapable. The only guarantee against being caught in it is to embrace the received wisdom or remain silent, or—at the risk of protesting too much—to make the case with extra care, which we endeavored to do for the reasons Ben articulated in his reply. Thanks again.
Thank you. Although made in jest, I understand your second point. We're threading a needle here. True, we lay out what could be called the Russian apologists' argument in some detail--one could perhaps argue too much detail. But the point is not to certify that argument as valid or mostly valid, but to point out that many unquestionably loyal Americans and others with no truck with Vladimir Putin have made it. To quote us: "Once again, wise people can disagree—and have disagreed—with such analysis as Kennan’s. One could argue that it is misguided or even dangerous. It is certainly not truth beyond questioning. But neither is it *dis*information or *mis*information. It is intelligently conceived and articulated *in*formation, of the sort that is vital to informed debate and an informed citizenry. And an informed citizenry is never more important than in times of national and even global tension, when prudence and the consideration of complex realities must not give way to Manichaean passions and simple if stirring invocations of 'values.'"
Thanks again to both of you and apologies if I my joke at the end was a touch too glib...
Hopefully once the Fog of War has lifted or mellowed somewhat, people can more soberly assess your arguments and learn (once again) the vital role dissent plays in making wiser and more informed decisions...
No apologies necessary! Ben and I must avoid appearing as though we're advocating not just for free speech but for a particular viewpoint under dispute. Occupational hazard. But you (and others) are welcome and encouraged to express your viewpoints, and I apologize if we came off as coldly disapproving. Personally, I enjoyed the quip, and I wouldn't want to chill any such contributions to our comments threads. Thank you again.
Thank you so much for this clearheaded analysis and for your defense of dissent, which is always the first victim of any war or other panic-inducing event.
Just one question: would you consider your article "Russian disinformation" or "Russian misinformation"? JK!
Thank you for your nice comment, with its humorous fillip at the end. Yes, it did occur to us that our words could be quoted by Russian interests and could therefore be seen by some as “proof” that we, too, are merely regurgitating foreign talking points. Circular logic is like that, designed to be inescapable. The only guarantee against being caught in it is to embrace the received wisdom or remain silent, or—at the risk of protesting too much—to make the case with extra care, which we endeavored to do for the reasons Ben articulated in his reply. Thanks again.
Thank you. Although made in jest, I understand your second point. We're threading a needle here. True, we lay out what could be called the Russian apologists' argument in some detail--one could perhaps argue too much detail. But the point is not to certify that argument as valid or mostly valid, but to point out that many unquestionably loyal Americans and others with no truck with Vladimir Putin have made it. To quote us: "Once again, wise people can disagree—and have disagreed—with such analysis as Kennan’s. One could argue that it is misguided or even dangerous. It is certainly not truth beyond questioning. But neither is it *dis*information or *mis*information. It is intelligently conceived and articulated *in*formation, of the sort that is vital to informed debate and an informed citizenry. And an informed citizenry is never more important than in times of national and even global tension, when prudence and the consideration of complex realities must not give way to Manichaean passions and simple if stirring invocations of 'values.'"
Thanks again to both of you and apologies if I my joke at the end was a touch too glib...
Hopefully once the Fog of War has lifted or mellowed somewhat, people can more soberly assess your arguments and learn (once again) the vital role dissent plays in making wiser and more informed decisions...
with much appreciation...
No apologies necessary! Ben and I must avoid appearing as though we're advocating not just for free speech but for a particular viewpoint under dispute. Occupational hazard. But you (and others) are welcome and encouraged to express your viewpoints, and I apologize if we came off as coldly disapproving. Personally, I enjoyed the quip, and I wouldn't want to chill any such contributions to our comments threads. Thank you again.