Russia

Hillary Clinton Asked Why Russia 'Reset' Didn't Work, Blames Putin, Distances Herself From Failure

|

if he's hitler is she chamberlain?
State Dept.

With U.S.-Russian relations appearing to be at a thirty-year low the Obama Administration's attempt to "reset" relations with the former Cold War adversary has been an utter failure. Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state while the administration was working on this reset and will likely be a candidate for the presidency in 2016, would like to distance herself from this pretty obvious, and pretty difficult to spin away, foreign policy failure.

Asked by CNN's Fareed Zakaria what happened to the reset, Hillary Clinton provided a wandering answer that flagged her own skepticism at the time and blamed it on Putin's return to power in 2011 (everyone in the world knew this was coming, not just the top men). A portion of her answer, via CNN:

So when he announced in the fall of 2011 that he would be changing positions with Medvedev, I knew that he would be more difficult to deal with. He had been always the power behind Medvedev, but he had given Medvedev a lot of independence to do exactly what you said and make the reset a success.

I saw that firsthand with respect to the primary elections in Russia, because they were filled with irregularities and Russian people poured out in the streets to protest. And I, as Secretary of State, said the Russians deserve better. They deserved elections that reflected their will.

Putin attacked me personally because he is very worried about any kind of internal dissent. He wanted to clamp down on any opposition within Russia and he wanted to provide more influence and even intimidation on his borders.

And I certainly made my views known in meetings, as well as in memos to the president. I think that what may have happened is that both the United States and Europe were really hoping for the best from Putin as a returned president. And I think we've been quickly, unfortunately, disabused of those hopes.

Mitt Romney insisted during the 2012 campaign that Russia was America's "number one geopolitical foe." Insofar as that meant Russian and U.S. interests don't always align it's kind of a no shit thing. The idea that through good will alone a relationship with a sovereign country with its own national security interests could be "reset," and by extension the idea at somehow the personage of George W. Bush was why Vladimir Putin didn't align himself with U.S. interests, is a ridiculous one and certainly not reality-based. As President Obama's first secretary of state, Clinton ought to accept her responsibility in the failure that resulted from so misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) Russian foreign policy interests.

Putin, on the other hand, denies a frosty relationship with the U.S., pointing out his country, for example, still permits the U.S. to transit through its territory to supply troops in Afghanistan—in that interview he asked who Obama was to judge another country's interventionist foreign policy, suggesting the president go be a judge somewhere if that's what he wants to do. In a separate interview, responding to Clinton comparing him to Hitler Putin suggested it was better not to respond to a woman.

NEXT: Passenger Says He Wants to 'Bomb Canada' Over Cigarette Taxes, U.S. Fighter Jets Escort Flight Back to Toronto

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Dear Hillary King Midas seeks a queen….

  2. *clamp down on dissent*: interesting choice of words from Madame Hillary.

  3. She later clarified her comments, saying Putin isn’t exactly like Hitler, he’s just doing a lot of Hitler-like things.

    You know who else did a lot of Hitler-like things ….

    1. Kurt Waldheim?

      1. Well, I was thinking of Charlie Chaplain, but I’ll accept that.

        1. Charlie Chaplain

          Was he Father Mulcahy?

    2. Mr. Hilter?

      1. “Make joke! Not head of Gestapo at all!”

    3. Vegetarians?

      No, no wait… Steve Jobs?

      Either him or Ashton Kutcher.

      1. The Iceman? Man, he had that great finger roll when he played for the Spurs. 🙂

  4. …”Distances Herself From Failure”

    Well, you know she has some hard choices to make. I mean, like how much of a screaming bitch does she need to be to avoid answering real questions? Those are difficult to answer.

  5. “I saw that firsthand with respect to the primary elections in Russia, because they were filled with irregularities and Russian people poured out in the streets to protest.”

    In what sense did she see that more “firsthand” than, say, me?

    1. She trained the Russians on how to do voting skullduggery.

      Duh.

  6. So I’m going to take away from this that the elites of the American Left, on both team red and team blue, don’t know what they’re doing at any given moment.

    Let us not vote for any more elites. We will banish them to the lecture circuit, where they can give speeches to one another.

    1. Once again: “None of the above” must be a legitimate ballot choice.

  7. Does Hillary seem presidential? That’s all that matters electionally.

    1. Not to Putin. That’s all that matters electionally.

    2. Is it 3am? Is the phone ringing?

  8. “Hillary distances herself from failure.”

    Is it too early to make a prediction on the Democratic campaign slogan for 2016?

    1. “Failure is not an option”?

    2. What! She’s going for the divorce?

      1. Sadly, things have gotten so awful over the last decade that I’ve begun to look back upon Bill Clinton’s presidency with some nostalgia.

        1. After Hilary we will look back at Obama with Nostalgia and the living will envy the dead.

          She is going to start WW3: the real war to end all wars.

  9. Putin does say the two might be able to laugh together at a good joke “someday.”

    “What’s the difference between communist hell and capitalist hell?”

    1. I was thinking along the lines of…’Two lesbians in pant suits walk into a bar…’

        1. *snarfs*

  10. At this point, what difference does it make?

  11. “Sure, my predecessor as Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, speaks Russian, lived in Russia, is an academic expert on Russia, and has years of foreign policy experience centered on Russia, but I know better than her how to deal with the Russians, based on the fact that I was Bill Clinton’s wife.”

    1. “Ah, Hillary, you make *joke*. We share laugh now. Ha, ha, HA!”

    2. I rate this a 10 on high-brow snark. 🙂

    1. I love how the progtards there are sneering at him, when it is simple historical fact that slavery in the Americas predates European colonies, and that slavery in the US was ended by citizens of that nation, not by some outside force.

      the Left: often wrong, but never ever in doubt.

      1. I have yet to see any argument that Americans introduced slavery into the New World, and that someone other than Americans ended it here.

        I mean, a case could be made that the British Empire did more than any other group to end slavery in the world (as much as it can be ended), but no one seems to be arguing that.

        I’m not sure which group introduced the African slave trade into the Americas, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t “the Americans”.

        1. Well, they were white, which is the point, isn’t it? Before the white man polluted the Americas, the indigenous peoples didn’t have slavery, they all too turns volunteering at each others’ nonprofit organic farms. And slaves totally weren’t sacrificed in bloody heart-ripping ceremonies.

          1. They didn’t have war or disease, either.

        2. “I’m not sure which group introduced the African slave trade into the Americas.”

          Portuguese.

          1. Are the Portuguese still considered “White People”? Or is that question racist?

            1. Interestingly, the first Moorish slaves in Europe were taken in revenge raids against Moorish pirates who were taking Portuguese in coastal raids and selling them as slaves in Morocco.

            2. I’m not sure why they wouldn’t be

          2. It should be clarified, though, that much was done by “privateers” (pirates), who weren’t keen on following directions from the various crowns and churches, most of whom lodged various moral objections from time to time, non-fruit-bearing.

            1. …”various crowns and churches, most of whom lodged various moral objections from time to time, non-fruit-bearing.”

              Not arguing, except maybe I am. Got some cites on that?
              I don’t recall the Regents having problems with slaves, and the churches only rarely.

              1. Bartolome de las Casas was a friar based in Cuba in the early 16th century who had deep problems with many, many aspects of what was going on the Caribbean. Queen Isabella made some very public gestures of moral offense and demanded various reforms, but understood pragmatically that she really didn’t have much power over the situation.

                I think the Bourbons also had some high-minded rhetoric, and the British tended to tsk-tsk, but I don’t have any specific examples there.

                1. Sure not gonna beat on you, but one Friar, a Queen who said, uh, well, something and royal rumors aren’t ‘most’ of anything.
                  Slavery was accepted at the time by many, and absent the implied coercion of government, it would not have existed.
                  Is there ANY other circumstance where the state yields the monopoly of coercion to the individual? The state supported and enforced the delegated powers of coercion to enable slave-holding.
                  Contra Lincoln, the state did not have to outlaw slave-holding, it merely had to state that it did not share coercion with private parties.
                  The slaves could have walked away.

                  1. To be clear: Slavery existed ONLY under the power of the state to delegate coercion to individuals.
                    Slaves were sold in the marketplace but that marketplace existed only as a result of government delegation of coercion.

                    1. That’s an interesting question, and I suppose it comes back to that line between “Lord So-and-So” and “Government.”

                      I can certainly think of examples all through history of any particular tribe of whoever enslaving other tribes in the normal course of inter-tribal warfare. It’s just what you did up to a certain point in history.

                      At what point does that become state oppression rather than one clan lording it over another? Or is there a difference?

                    2. There was little “state” control in the early part of Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the new world. Private force kept the indigenous peoples in slavery, just as it had captured the land in the first place.

                  2. Okay, fair enough. Case overstated. The line is pretty fine. Most pirates, as I understand, were nobles, so where does one draw the line in the sixteenth century between pirates and government? The English East India Company was founded by pirates and wound up acquiring huge territories for the “British Empire.”

                    I do think, though, that in the sixteenth-century Caribbean “approval” from the European governments for the various things going on was essentially irrelevant – the folks “at home in Europe” could think what they wanted, it didn’t make a bit of difference to what happened in the New World. If slaves were for sale in Africa, guys with ships bought them and brought them to Cuba and sold them to whoever paid for them.

                    So maybe it’s just a fact of history that at some point of development common thugs become governments.

                    Once you get to slavery as an institution in the USA, yes it took state power to enforce that, but I’m not sure that the federal government withdrawing its support would have ended the institution, as many of the Southern states did not seem interested in ending it.

                    That’s one of those historical issues on which I’m genuinely conflicted. Like WWII.

        3. I didn’t see “the new world” or “the Americas” mentioned once. Both people seem to have been talking about the land that became the US, although he used the term North America

        4. I mean, a case could be made that the British Empire did more than any other group to end slavery in the world (as much as it can be ended), but no one seems to be arguing that.

          Lights the Ken Shultz signal

      2. I think it’s what he’s implying by that statement that annoy people

        1. *annoys

        2. Well, being unable to read minds, I don’t know what he’s implying, just what he said.

    2. “Eventually, we ended slavery. We have been a civilizing influence in the world.”

      The devil is in the “eventually” and the “we.”

      No, Europeans did not introduce slavery to the New World. After the early medieval period, Europeans never even actually actively enslaved people in any very large numbers. Purchased them, yes; kept them and their descendants enslaved, yes; enslaved them in the first place, no.

      While “we” Americans brought an end to slavery on the continent, some Americans encouraged this process, others rather actively resisted it.

      1. Europeans never even actually actively enslaved people in any very large numbers.

        …during the middle to late medieval period.

        Romans and Greeks and Gauls and Germans and Vikings and Visigoths and on and on and on did enslave quite a lot.

        Fun fact St Patrick was a Roman enslaved by Irish raiders.

        1. Also serfdom was slavery.

    3. It is more than a little amusing that a denomination founded on the premise that slavery was Biblically mandated is now headed by a black descendant of slaves, with his predecessor offering up anti-slavery, pro-Union apologia from the pulpit, as it were.

      1. The Yankification of the South is nigh complete.

        1. Well, circa 19th-century anyways.

          Capitalism? Check.

          Anti-slavery? Check.

          Major industrial center? Oh, yes.

          Heartland of the Baptist denomination? Check.

          Area of significant immigration to the US? Si, senor.

          Any other similarities?

  12. Putin suggested it was better not to respond to a woman.

    Say one thing about Vlad, say he’s better at putting his thumb in the eye of the modern Democrat party then Republicans are.

    1. Would be entertaining – and probably a little disturbing – to see Hillary’s reaction getting her Feminazi buttons pushed like that given the normal PC army-shame-attack doesn’t work outside Western culture. If she keeps running her mouth in interviews, Vlad will be making snide Monica-jokes before long.

      That sick fucking CCCP creep definitely knows an easy mark when he sees one.

      1. Shocker…a former KGB officer has a better understanding of political manipulation and gamesmanship than a lady who used to sleep with Bill Clinton.

        But of course he was never clever enough to fake a head injury to duck Congressional testimony. 🙂

    2. lol Pressing the reset.

  13. Mitt Romney insisted during the 2012 campaign that Russia was America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Insofar as that meant Russian and U.S. interests don’t always align it’s kind of a no shit thing. The idea that through good will alone a relationship with a sovereign country with its own national security interests could be “reset,” and by extension the idea at somehow the personage of George W. Bush was why Vladimir Putin didn’t align himself with U.S. interests, is a ridiculous one and certainly not reality-based.

    I’m no non-interventionist, but I’ll throw them a bone in the case of Russia: there is nothing that says that the US and Russia are destined to have conflicting destinies. We traded, interacted, and navigated through our respective imperial ideologies peaceably for many years, despite there being opposing claims on land. All this, during a supposedly less enlightened time for both countries. Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II had as productive a working relationship as the President had with any foreign leader. In fact the sad state of post-Cold War US-Russian relations is probably the single greatest recent indictment of interventionism.

    Yes, Russia can be chauvinist dicks. (We can, too.) Yes, their actions in Ukraine are war crimes. But what does that have to do with the price of tea? It’s not the USSR and we can do business with them without being naive; if they want to be Protectors of Orthodoxy Resurgent, that’s their business.

    1. There is, actually. Bush noted about his dealings with Putin that the Russian leader sees it as very much a zero sum game with the U.S. It is not enough that Russia and he succeed, but we must not. There’s inevitably going to be conflict there, particularly when the Russian leader has aggressive, expansionist tendencies.

    1. “I confess that I haven’t read the book. In fact, if I found myself stranded on a desert island with just 50 Shades of Grey and a screwdriver, I would stab myself in the eyes with the tool so that the option to read the book would be permanently removed, even when I’m on the verge of going insane from boredom and solitude.”

      1. It is soft core porn and crappy writing, but this guy needs to calm down. The world is filled with soft core porn and crappy writing. Has he ever seen an episode, any episode, of True Blood? Why get all exercised about this particular variety?

        My guess is it won’t do well at the box office. It’s hard for middle-aged women to masturbate in a theater.

        1. Oddly I think people are getting exercised about this *because* it is “safe” porn. I think there’s real anxiety that this is porn going mainstream, essentially, not so much that it’s in any way even like what happens on cable, let alone actual porn.

          Is it really any different than 9-1/2 Weeks, though? I haven’t read the book, but my wife has, and she wasn’t super impressed.

          1. I haven’t read the book, but my wife has, and she wasn’t super impressed.

            My understanding is the work started as erotic fan fiction for the twilight series.

            Its great appeal I think is that like Twilight it leaves the woman protagonist as a non-descriptive everywoman that allows a woman reader to identify with.

        2. I haven’t read the books so maybe the casting choices are spot on, but I’m not all that interested in either Dakota Johnson or whatever guy they picked.

    2. I have heard and read not a few feminists make the claim that 50 shades and other works like it is erotica and therefore OK…unlike porn.

    3. Besides, why do you even have problem with a trailer for a movie based on a book that romanticizes a sociopathic pervert who sexually dominates a young, impressionable woman?

      Written by a woman for women and wildly successful among women.

      Note: not saying women want to be raped or beaten or whatever. I have plenty of sexual fantasies that I do not want to come true…and a few require the breaking of the laws of physics let alone moral ones. It is just facepalm worthy that there are assholes out there that think having them fictionalized is something bad.

  14. Sounds like my exgirlfriend.

    She blamed Putin too! hi-yoooohhh

  15. Posted in January by the clairvoyants at fbo.gov- “ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is seeking the services of a responsible vendor that shares the philosophy of treating all UAC with dignity and respect, while adhering to standard operating procedures and policies that allow for an effective, efficient, and incident free transport. The Contractor shall provide unarmed escort staff, including management, supervision, manpower, training, certifications, licenses, drug testing, equipment, and supplies necessary to provide on-demand escort services for non-criminal/non-delinquent unaccompanied alien children ages infant to 17 years of age, seven (7) days a week, 365 days a year. Transport will be required for either category of UAC or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air”. So is putting coyotes out of a job racketeering, or a good libertarian application of Cloward-Piven? After all, a crises, (even a manufactured one) is a terrible thing to waste.

  16. Honestly surprised Hilary did not blame the Republicans and “their” budget sequester.

    1. She’s saving it for later.

  17. I think the problem may just be that Putin’s never read “The Audacity of Hope”.

  18. Can this be blamed on global warming?

    1. Yes. Yes it can:

      http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..ange/print

      1. That’s amazing. It really is.

      2. So women and minorities suffer most?

  19. Once President Stompy-feet is gone (assuming he doesn’t declare himself Emperor for Life) and it’s President Hildabeest’s turn, again, then she’ll finally be able to team us up with al-Qaeda, again, to wage war on Russia’s allies once again. It’ll be just like old times, again. Pure awesomeness times a gazillion!!!

  20. Sounds liek a pretty solid plan to me dude.

    http://www.AnonToolz.tk

  21. Reasons why Hill-Dong won’t take personal responsibility for anything ever, in no particular order;

    1. She’s a politician
    2. She’s a Clinton
    3. She’s a Democrat
    4. She’s a woman

    That is all.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.