My favorite Yeltsin moment came when I was serving in the Army in Germany on the day Yeltsin stood on the tank. That was one of the more nervous, "WTF" days of my entire life - to say we instantly went on high alert as the tanks rolled through Moscow, does not begin to describe the CF that went down that day. We wondered if it was the big post-standdown offensive Lenin had theorized about, and if the generals and intel apparat were in control, and Yeltsin on the outs.

I always liked Yeltsin after that, thought he had a brass pair and was the kind of leader (like Gorbachev) that the west *could* and *should* look to deal with in a straightforward manner. There was a genuineness and honesty about him (similar to his successor, Putin) that earned respect and made the modicum of mutual trust necessary to good international relations possible.

On a related subject, we need to discuss over chilled vodka and apple slices your thoughts on the character of the Rodina and its apparent return to something like a pre-1917 authoritarian monarchy, with a resurgent church & a surprisingly popular "presidential" sovereign restored, who is really sort of continuing what Yeltsin started... Come to think of it, wings and beer would probably suffice to spur discussion of this question.

Oh gawd, let's pull out the "I've looked into his eyes and I've seen his soul" quote!

But, now that it's been mentioned, it's true, I can see a genuineness to Putin. After all, if you're a journalist, and you dare to criticize, you genuinely know that his goons will be after you.

Chris, I think you need to figure out whether you want idealists running foreign policy, or pragmatists. Post-2003, I'm starting to think you can only have one or the other. Seems to me we have an idealist running the show right now, and idealism is turning out to be pretty unpopular, and everybody is yearning for some good old fashioned Scowcroftian realism. Hey, I've been convinced by the arguments about Iraq that idealism in foreign policy is a bad idea. You should take a win where you can get it.

OK, I think I see what you're talking about. You're saying Putin is honest and genuine vis-a-vis the United States. I don't agree with that either, but I wasn't speaking to US foreign policy when I wrote that; rather, I was speaking to the fact that the country he runs is barely democratic and his regime is repressive. In short, I was talking about Putin's domestic policy.

It is interesting to me how two people can see something so radically different. You see Bush's policy on Iraq as having been based on "idealism." Me, just the opposite. Honestly, the truth really is sometimes quite relative.

On the broader theory of "pragmatists" over "idealism" in foreign policy, in my view, that's the kind of thing that led this country down the road of Jeane Kirkpatrick's bone-headed recycled-from-Kissinger distinction between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. I liked the fact that she smoked a pipe, but I never bought it then and I don't buy it now. Perhaps you think its idealistic to think it is possible to be pragmatic and realistic but still keep some shred of integrity, but that's where I come down on the matter.

roleur,

i take your point, and i think it's fair. i also see chris' point as well. both are reasonable.

i recently had an office discussion with a co-worker who used to be a fairly well placed person in both state politics and the democratic party. i argued, rather more than was necessary and rather more vociferously than was necessary, that the democratic party in america needs to take risks and function as an opposition party. my co-worker felt that this was inappropriate and delivered, what is in essence, a rebuke that my views were very fringe and were not close to what would be a the concensus democratic view. specifically, he hit me with what is a much more polite version of the east coast liberal knock. i resented it then and i resent it now.

we have been under the yoke of idealists for a while, but the problem is not that they are idealists, but it's the ideals they espouse (snide aside: along with what appears to be a considerable amount of tolerance for departing from those ideals when it's convenient).

the real problem with pragmatism as i see it practiced on a regular basis is that presumes knowledge that one rarely has. read the following twice:

http://www.thepoorman.net/2007/03/31/electable/

what the author does a masterful job of relating is the difficulty in knowing all the dimensions and facets of a issue or decision. pragmatism is a form of compromise, but it presupposes some things. you assume you can't get everything you want so you make an offer or propose a position that is somewhere you think the other side might take. but you are pre-supposing that you know what the other side will think. this truly is the kissengerian model: attempting to look in a brutally honest way at a situation, knowing for sure what you want, supposing youknow what the other side(s) want, and then putting something on the table that suits you fairly well, all things considered.

though this is not appropriate for all situations, i feel that for most things it is far better to present what you see as the only option and fail than to compromise away. look at john mccain. here you have someone who was a prisoner of war working to strip habeaus corpus and working to maintain our right to hold and torture people. if there was anyone in the world who would truly, deeply understand the dynamics of this issues, it's him. so what gives? do you think he likes torture? i don't. i'll give him that much. i think he's doing what he thinks is pragmatic. and therein lies my beef. i would prefer he were an out and out idealist. in the 2000 election, he was soft on abortion and a number of other social issues from a republican point of view. and he was much more popular. now he is positioning himself as far to the right as conveniently possible. but i don't think that's what he actually believes and i think other people think the same thing and that's why he's where he is now.

his polar opposite right now is russ feingold. that man is awesome. check this. go back to june of 2004 and see what feingold was saying. and look at what he's saying now. he hasn't changed position, yet the democratic leaders now join him in sponsoring bills. he did not compromise, and i would support him unendingly because of it. he understood what the "right" and "wrong" sides of several debates and stuck to the unpopular, though "right", side. we as a society, based on popular attitudes, have come around to see things his way. i am appalled it took so long, but it did eventually happen. if all democrats had taken his path, history would have been very different. he is the new paul wellstone. the other democrats, and especially the current presiedential front runners should be ashamed of themselves. and i will never let them forget it.