I think my post was calm—I didn’t attack any user. Regarding your (Vaenyr) ‘trumpeting,’ all I meant was that you shifted the focus to ‘fascists in office, there are no Marxists.’ That’s all. I was actually interested in that article about neo-Marxist ideas in U.S. universities. Obviously, I don’t know firsthand what’s happening there. So… does that mean any right-wing opinion is nonsense? Huh
Also, I asked ChatGPT about Andrew A. Michta’s political views… To me, it doesn’t look like he’s pro-Russian—quite the opposite. (He’s the one who wrote the article I reposted today.)
Who is Andrew A. Michta
- An American political scientist, born in Poland.
- He’s a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s GeoStrategy Initiative.
- His expertise includes international security, NATO, European politics and security, with a special focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic states.
His views on Russia
Here are some of the key points Michta makes, showing his stance:
- Russia as a Revisionist / Imperial State
- He repeatedly describes Russia under Vladimir Putin as seeking to revise the post–Cold War order, reclaim territory, and reassert influence in its near abroad (Central and Eastern Europe).
- He says that Russia’s war against Ukraine is not an isolated event, but part of a broader drive to restore what he calls velikiy russkiy mir (“great Russian world” / Pax Russica).
- Russia’s Strategic / Civilizational Opposition to the West
- He argues that there is a civilizational dimension in how Russian leadership views itself in opposition to the West. The idea that Russia sees its identity and legitimacy partly in confrontation with Western norms.
- He criticizes Russian ideology such as “official nationalism” (Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality) and how it has echoes in current Russian foreign policy.
- Support for NATO / Ukraine
- Michta supports Ukraine’s membership in NATO. He sees it as not only effective but economical for securing Europe.
- He strongly argues that failing to allow Ukraine into NATO (or delaying membership) plays into Russian hands.
- Warning about Russian Military Rebuilding & Deterrence
- He believes that Russia can rebuild its military fairly quickly (within a few years) and that Western/European states are not keeping pace in terms of readiness, deterrence, and perception of risk.
- He sees Europe’s security posture—especially on the Eastern flank—as fragile and warns of a potential collapse or serious imbalance if deterrence weakens or if institutional cohesion (within NATO) is lost.
- Attribution of Blame and Responsibility
- He holds Vladimir Putin, and the Russian state, largely responsible for the aggression against Ukraine and the broader destabilization in the region.
- He emphasizes that any rational strategy to deal with Russian aggression must begin from acknowledging that responsibility.
Is he “pro-Russian”?
No — based on his published work and statements, he is
not pro-Russian. On the contrary:
- He sees Russia as a threat (military, ideological, geopolitical).
- He urges stronger Western (NATO / US / Europe) responses and unity against Russian aggression.
- He supports Ukraine’s defenses and their inclusion into Western security structures.
What we do know about his U.S.-context views
- Strong national security / foreign policy realism
Michta emphasizes that U.S. policy should foreground hard power, geopolitical threats, and defense alliances.
For example, he argues that the U.S. must rethink NATO’s burden-sharing and structure to better handle threats from Russia, China, etc.
- Concern with polarization, governance, “national consensus”
Michta frequently speaks about the internal U.S. crisis of polarization: the weakening of shared norms, the collapse of trust, disputes about national identity, “woke” culture, immigration debates, etc.
He argues that American democratic order depends on renewing what he calls a national consensus—shared narratives about what the country is and what citizenship means.
- Critique of globalization / liberal world order assumptions
He’s skeptical of some post-Cold War assumptions—particularly that globalization, liberal democracy, and global economic openness would resolve geopolitical threats or make the world safe.
He warns that reliance on purely institutional / normative frameworks (vs power politics) underestimates adversaries.
- Emphasis on traditional state sovereignty, defense, and a stricter immigration/identity lens
His points often circle back to national sovereignty, the importance of defending one’s borders, and pushing back against what he deems elite-driven ideologies (e.g. “woke” or cultural progressivism) as potentially eroding cohesion.
Is he “far right”?
“Far right” is a loaded term—it suggests extremist or ultra-conservative positions (often ideologically rigid, exclusionary, sometimes nativist, anti-pluralist). Based on what’s available:
- No strong evidence that Michta supports extremist or fringe far-right views. He tends to operate within mainstream foreign policy / national security debates.
- He is critically conservative on certain cultural issues: e.g., critical of “cancel culture,” worried about identity politics, etc. These are often associated with right-leaning thinkers.
- On immigration, “woke culture,” elite institutions, he appears skeptical of liberal cosmopolitanism and more open immigration frameworks. This can overlap with some right-wing populist critiques. Wikipedia+1
However:
- He doesn’t seem to reject democratic norms, or embrace authoritarian elements. He works in academic / policy think-tank circuits (Atlantic Council, etc.).
- He doesn’t appear to push radical social policies typical of the far right (e.g. overt ethno-nationalism, major anti-immigrant laws as a core platform), at least not in his public writing.
- His focus is heavily on foreign policy, institutional capacity, geopolitical threats; less on domestic policy that often typifies far-right movements (though he does engage with cultural / identity issues).
My assessment: Where he likely sits
Putting all this together, I’d describe him as
right-of-center, conservative-leaning in cultural and foreign policy dimensions, but
not far right in the sense of extremist or outside mainstream. More precisely:
- Someone concerned with restoring or preserving traditional ideas of citizenship, national identity, state sovereignty.
- A realist in foreign policy—not isolationist, but wanting tough posture vs threats.
- Critical of liberal elite institutions, identity politics, political polarization.
