The Anti-Russian campaign is in full swing. It might as well
be 1950, 1961 or 1983. It's reaching that kind of intensity.
First, we're told that Russian affiliated hackers attempted
to steal data related to development of a Covid-19 vaccine. These hacks
targeted Western pharmaceutical companies that are currently involved in the
research and development.
No actual proof has been provided and this is in keeping with
a now consistent pattern. The intelligence agencies leak the story and if past
is precedent they all but co-write the stories with their agent-reporters.
Without actual evidence that's verified by a neutral third party – there's no
reason to believe them. I know for many, they want to believe that their
intelligence agencies are run by swashbuckling truth-crusading patriots but the
reality is far different and if they bothered to do a little research or read a
little history they would discover this. These agencies lie and manipulate with
abandon. That is their one glaring and persistent trait.
I am therefore dubious with regard to the claims. However, let's
assume they're true. What would such a hack mean? Are they suggesting that
Moscow would sabotage the process or that they would somehow try and keep the
vaccine out of the hands of Western researchers?
Well, there's nothing to suggest this and few are even
willing to suggest it. The narrative seems to imply that perhaps they're trying
to get the data to develop their own vaccine.
We can grant this a modicum of plausibility. Why would they
do this? That's a question that's not asked.
Well, if say, Pfizer develops the vaccine you can be sure the
West will use it as political leverage against Moscow – forcing them into
concessions and insisting on letting a Western medical regime into their
country. Moscow wouldn't want this and frankly for good reason as they know the
US is openly attempting to sow discord and make trouble for them within in
their borders.
Thus if Moscow is trying to steal data to develop their own
version of the vaccine – there's actually a reason why. I'm not saying it's
right but such an action would hardly be novel or deviate from the way other
nations behave including the United States.
But then of course one wonders what the real interests are in
Washington? It does not require a great deal of reflection to realise that
whatever company or companies develop the vaccine (and secure the government
contracts for its distribution) stands to make billions upon billions in
profit. It may become one of the most lucrative contracts in history. And it is
for this reason that the US Establishment as represented politically and in the
media wishes to deflect from what should be the real story and to project a
story onto Russia that furthers the already established Anti-Russian narrative.
It's really a case of killing two birds with one stone.
Is Russia after the research data? Maybe, but I really don't
care or particularly blame them if they are.
The idea that this will be a huge windfall for corporations
and stockholders is obscene, a case of usurious exploitation on a grand scale.
They are literally death profiteers.
What about the charge that Russia is paying the Taliban
bounties for the deaths of US soldiers? Again, there's no evidence and many
have already torn the story apart. The Taliban certainly needs little incentive
to attack and kill US soldiers.
And what motive would the Russians have? Their supposed
bounty programme has apparently failed – as very few American soldiers are
killed in Afghanistan these days. The tactics of both NATO and the Taliban
result in the avoidance of large ground confrontations. There are small-scale
fire fights which are quickly ended by NATO airpower.
The Russians are painted as pure evil – simply finding glee
in the death of American soldiers or something to that effect. The truth is the
benefit of a few US deaths would hardly be worth the international scandal were
the story to be revealed – not the current faux story that very few (even in
the international community) actually believe – but a real story with actual
proof and tangible deaths that could be pointed to. It would generate a crisis
and the risk wouldn't be worth it.
Of course the fact that Trump hasn't turned it into a crisis
is used to argue for his subservience to Putin – something certainly belied by
his record. His presidency has been quite hostile to Putin as much as or more
so than his predecessor.
Trump hasn't turned it into a crisis because the story is
largely bunk and he's not going to risk a wider war over nothing – a scenario
which does nothing to help the US.
But the story serves another purpose and one that even
someone like Trump can silently assent to. With the changing geopolitics over
the past couple of years and the rapid expansion of Beijing's OBOR project –
there's no way the US wants to leave Afghanistan right now. Some readers will
recall that only a few years ago reports emerged about surveys which indicated
Afghanistan is in possession of vast untapped sources of mineral wealth. The US
of course wants it and has hoped that the situation would be pacified enough
for them to exploit and develop these resources. But as the war dragged on many
in Washington simply wanted to get out and hoped that maybe at some point in
the future they could negotiate for the minerals – preferably with a puppet
government left behind.
But of course the situation has changed and China stands
ready to step in and exploit the mineral wealth and it has the local and
regional infrastructure to exploit it. Any deal offered by China is going to
prove far more attractive. Add in the fact that neighbouring Pakistan will also
approve of and collaborate with the deal – it's pretty attractive to those in
Kabul. The US is extra-continental and Afghanistan is (with the exception of
some of the Central Asian states) surrounded by US enemies such as China, Iran
and (for the most part) Pakistan. Getting the ores out to Central Asia doesn't
help much as these are some of the most geographically isolated nations on the
planet and some of them are double-landlocked countries. In almost every way a
deal with China will prove more feasible.
And so the US wants a new reason to stay and perhaps some
would use the story of Russian bounties to help twist the arms of doubters
(such as Trump) to perpetuate the US military presence.
The story is pure rubbish but the move in many respects makes
sense.
Finally, we were told that Moscow launched a new weaponised
missile which has anti-satellite capabilities. This is meant to demonstrate
Russian aggression which apparently ranges beyond simple geographic bounds and
seek to conquer space as well.
If Russia in fact launched such a weapon – which they very
well may have – then it sends a message. If you continue to push toward war,
know that we can (potentially) take out satellites such as those associated
with your vital GPS network or those you rely upon for espionage and targeting
or even those satellites that work in coordination with your defense systems.
Russia has no means to wage war against the US. All attempts
would be suicidal but it has to send the message – tangle with us and while
you'll probably win, the costs will be high – beyond what you can bear.
On another level I can also say – what did you expect? The US
has pulled out of the ABM and INF treaties – the core agreements that ended the
arms race and set the stage for detente and eventually the rapprochement that
occurred in the 1980's. Russia has every reason to distrust and fear
Washington. The US has broken its agreements and has sent highly aggressive
signals toward Moscow – signals that are spun and obscured by Western media,
but ones that are glaring to the rest of the world.
The Russian missile launch was not a case of aggression but a
defensive warning – a rattlesnake shaking its rattle, demanding to be left
alone.
The Russian regime under Putin has abandoned liberalism while
it has attempted to maintain some of its trappings and window dressing. This
too was to be expected. The voices in the 1990's that suggested Russia would
become a liberal democracy spoke out of ignorance. There were no foundations
for it in either Russia's history or culture. The truth is the system and its
values are not universal and not always desirable in every context. Russia has
a new Tsar – something many realised more than a decade ago. Russia is nowhere
near ready for liberal democracy if it ever will be.
And so there are voices that have called for the
establishment of a modus vivendi and
there are others who would call for a crusade and regime change. Again, let
history be their guide. Russia is not easily conquered from without.
But what is happening is that Putin – a man who sought that
very modus vivendi with the West was
effectively spat upon and within a fairly short time he undoubtedly realised
that the West was a false ally at best. The historical pattern was consistent
and as before the West was in fact attempting to subjugate and fragment his
nation. Putin may be a self-serving authoritarian but he's also a patriot and
has worked in that capacity to counter the US-NATO agenda.
Putin tried to reach out to the US after 9/11 and (perhaps
naively) thought the US would be an ally in the War on Terror as Russia had
already been engaged in a war with Chechen jihadists since the 1990's. But of
course the US was (and is) backing the Chechen Islamists and rebuffed Putin. If
he hadn't realised it before, he certainly realised it then – that the US War
on Terror was not about eradicating terrorism it was about American
unipolarity.
The enmity grew. The tug of war over Ukraine was in full
swing by 2004 – the very year NATO incorporated seven nations from the defunct Soviet
Union and Warsaw Pact. This was in addition to the three that had already
joined in 1999. NATO was moving up onto the Russian frontier and pushing for
'defensive' missile bases in nations like Poland and Romania.
By the Obama era the enmity was in full swing and in 2014 the
US and Russia became open enemies. As I've suggested those in Washington that
wanted a re-kindled Russian enemy to villainise – they've effectively created
him. The silly prophecies of a resurgent Soviet Union have of course proven
false but they have made Putin into an enemy and so now he acts like it. And so
in that capacity if he's launching anti-satellite missiles I can only say – so
what? What did you expect?
Putin is not to be admired. While I don't take issue with his
anti-liberalism, his mild but increasing pressure and persecution of Western
'sects' is abhorrent and to be condemned. But again there's a context for it
and while I find his actions to be detestable they are not wanton or sourced in
pure malevolence. Rather they are moves meant to counter Western infiltration
of his society. Sadly, because of Andrew Brunson and others the testimony of
US-based missionaries and 'ministries' is compromised. They are suspected of
being Western governmental proxies and in not a few cases there's truth to the
charge. These compromisers have (due to their perfidy) endangered the larger
Church and Christians and others are suffering as a result.
There are a few voices in the West that have tried to tell
this story but they are largely drowned out. We, the Church of Jesus Christ
should at the very least be able to step back, take in the larger picture and
context and respond with wisdom and restraint. Out of loyalty to Trump many
Evangelicals have rejected (at least in part) the Anti-Russia narratives. Or
rather they choose to simply ignore them even while under Bush they were at
times quite vocal in their opposition to Putin and Moscow. In other words their
resistance to the narrative is fickle and could quickly change.
Given all the hysteria in Right-wing circles over a
supposedly resurgent communism – I have no doubt that issue will be the vehicle
that decidedly turns Evangelicals against Putin and Russia – some kind of
narrative of a communist threat. Some have already bought into it as absurd as
it may be. Putin is many things, and yes of course he was once a KGB agent but oligarchical
Russia is in no way communistic. But given that Evangelicals and the Right
still speak of China as communist, clearly anything can be believed.
These anti-Russian stories are being aggressively pushed and
manipulated by Western media in an attempt to win more and more people over to
the Anti-Russian position which can be coupled with an equally false narrative
that discredits Trump. The president is guilty of many crimes – not a few of
which are impeachable. He is completely unqualified for the office and has
proven himself to be inherently corrupt, negligent and dangerous. It continues
to amaze me that people, especially Evangelicals support him. Though I strain
to say it – I can understand why some might have backed him in 2016 but to
still back him in 2020 – that just beggars belief.
But of course when you're stuck in the inane political binary
thinking that the American system promotes – I suppose such willing and
delusional subjection to manipulation is to be expected.
The 2016 Russian interference narrative has all but
collapsed. The Mueller investigation was a flop. The media continues to attempt
its revitalisation but to no avail. The whole story has gone off the rails but every
time one of these supposedly corollary stories of Russian nefariousness
resurfaces it affords the media an opportunity to re-kindle the story. This
attempt to revive the story and generate scandal is a big part of what's
happening here and as is so often the case the media's approach and tactics are
just as much a part of the larger story and its context. While Putin's deeds
and actions deserve mention and analysis, it's the West's campaign against him
that is the real story in all this. And it's far from over.