Old school Republicans had Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev as their iconic US-Russia duo. Old school Democrats don't have anything as classy; so they have to settle for sketchy twosome of Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin.
The New Yorker tries to up-spin these two sewer of successes in this bigoted piece of tripe:
The Undoing of Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin’s Friendship, and How It Changed Both of Their Countries
The obvious bigoted slanting does not begin right away, because we have to pretend to establish a false love affair between two degenerates, but rather begins with a hilarious narrative tone deafness:
In the earlier chapters of this story, Yeltsin is embattled, facing a difficult—at times, it seems, hopeless—reëlection battle, and Clinton stands by his side, a steadfast source of support. Later, when Yeltsin feels secure in his post and Clinton, too, is entering the final stages of his Presidency, the two men are friends with an easy rapport. They exchange hugs. They joke with each other.
Faithful Bill Clinton, yes sir. I am sure he and his then girlfriend Hillary Rodham also exchanged hugs and joked with each other before they got married and Bill promptly went off to exchange hugs with beauty queens and any other willing female around.
But who does the historically illiterate New Yorker blame for the bromance to go off the rails?
The Serbs. Liberal bigots always do.
And the American Left are horrific bigots when it comes to Eastern Europeans, especially those who are Orthodox Christians, but here is the first piece of hate speech:
On June 15, 1998, however, Clinton calls Yeltsin specifically to discuss Kosovo. He makes it clear that nato is considering military action to stop Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević’s troops from terrorizing Kosovo.
Terrorizing Kosovo? Is Masha Gessen really that stupid? If she did anything that remotely resembled research, she would have discovered how badly the Serbs in that region had been terrorized by the Kosovo Albanians for years. Orthodox Christian churches were burned, people vanished and were killed as well as driven off the land.
And how many Serbian journalists who tried to cover the war in Kosovo simply vanished.
But to arrogant script-followers like Gessen, it doesn't count when Serbs are slaughtered because she obviously doesn't see them as human beings.
But the hate trolling does not end there. But to journalists, their wickedness knows no end: they will openly and brazenly distort or suppress any unflattering information that destroys their false narratives just to have the chance to feign intelligence and morality as they pretend to prove a point that is untrue to begin with.
But this passage is a real knee-slapper:
Clinton calls Yeltsin to tell him that he, the leaders of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, “and the rest of the Europeans” have concluded that they must launch air strikes against Milošević. “As you know, Milošević has stonewalled your negotiator and Dick Holbrooke”—the American negotiator—“and he has continued to move his forces into Kosovo and to evacuate villages,” Clinton says. “He has left us no choice. I know that you oppose what we are doing, but I want you to know that I am determined to do whatever I can to keep our disagreement from ruining everything else we have done and can do together in the coming years.”
Yes, a bunch of well-heeled large Western countries will be bombing innocent civilians of a small, broke, war-torn nation as we feign worrying about social welfare, but we do hope to maintain Russia as a pawn in any of our future diplomatic games.
How psychopathically charming.
Especially when we then blame the Serbs for all of the universe's problems:
Clinton begs Yeltsin not to allow Milošević to destroy their relationship—in his framing, it is all the Serb’s fault. “I have always been there for you, working hard with my people to support Russia economically,” Clinton says. “I came there last fall. I was there in 1996 when a lot of people said I shouldn’t go.”
But without questioning the American president's motives, we have this little disclaimer buried int the piece:
Nineteen years later, it seems clear that one President was being more honest than the other. Contrary to Clinton’s assertion, he and the other NATO leaders certainly had a choice in the situation, and the choice they made—to launch a military offensive without the sanction of the United Nations—changed the way that the United States wields force.
Of course they had a choice. Not listening to PR propaganda that was accessible through FARA would have been very sensible. Not falling for journalistic narratives from those who would not know a Serb if they woke up in bed next to one, would have been grand.
But journalists always draw conclusions before receiving any of the facts.
Because the New Yorker now is trying to do something quite manipulative by trying to force readers to draw an insane conclusion.
Here is the first premise:
By bypassing the Security Council and establishing the United States as the sole arbiter of good and evil, it paved the way for the war in Iraq, among other things.
Here is the second premise:
Later that year, Yeltsin anointed Vladimir Putin his successor and signed off on a renewed war in Chechnya.
Do we see where this is going?
What is the subtextual thesis of this dreck?
Blame the Serbs for Donald Trump getting elected.
Pathetic, New Yorker. It's just sick and stupid.
Perhaps if Western journalism actually did their jobs without the malicious innuendos and didn't keep their populace ignorant and misinformed, you'd have a healthier society than you do now.
Just a hypothesis, but one with far more evidence than blaming Serbs for your profession's own deserved demise...