From the Olympics to computing, from news to politics, the Russians are everywhere in the news or more accurately the Anti-Russian propaganda campaign is everywhere. This is by far the worst we've seen in forty years, since the tense period accompanying Reagan's ascent to the US presidency. Almost immediately he began a rapid military buildup and a series of aggressive military Psyops directed against Russia. The US pushed the Russian security perimeter by air, land, and sea. At that time the Soviets were in dire fear of an American First Strike and became very edgy and the tension led to events like the shootdown of KAL 007.
The US turned this event into an international scandal and
yet it would have never happened had the US not been playing the games it had in
that very region all throughout 1983. The official US narrative has rightly
been questioned. In addition to Reagan's Evil Empire speech at the National
Association of Evangelicals, the announcement of the SDI (Star Wars) programme and
plans to deploy Pershing II Missiles in Europe, in November of 1983 the US launched
its Able Archer nuclear-simulation exercise which given the tensions, was
viewed as a dangerous provocation by Moscow and they feared the exercise was in
fact a precursor to full-scale war.
The events of early 2022 have a similar feel but in some
respects the situation is more desperate. Russia is not the USSR, it's a county
with a second-tier economy the size of Italy and while they don't fear a First
Strike with nuclear weapons, the criminal Putin regime fears for the existence
and viability of the Russian state itself – and with good reason. A primary US
goal has been to make Russia a subservient state, a fragmented satrap of the US
Empire. Like the powers that invaded it previously, Russia is not only a great geopolitical
prize but its vast resources are sought for exploitation. The dismantling project
was well underway in the 1990's but was derailed and has now (from Washington's
perspective) turned into a nightmare.
Its own society in a state of peril, the United States is
seeking to project its problems outward and through militarism find a path to
domestic unity and geopolitical restoration. Russia for its part has turned to
militarism as a tactic of defense. Apart from energy politics, it has little in
the way of options. Rather than just sit and wait for the next wave of US
inspired attacks and political intrigues, in 2014 Russia decided to shift gears
and adopted offense as the best defensive strategy.
Betrayed and exploited by the Bush I and Clinton
administrations, Moscow under Vladimir Putin began to understand (especially after
9/11) that the US was adopting an overtly hostile posture. Withdrawing from
treaties, further expanding NATO, manipulating the politics of Ukraine in 2004,
backing Islamists in the Caucasus, and trying to force its way into Central
Asia – it was also clear that militarist elements in the US were backing
Mikheil Saakashvili in the events leading up to the 2008 War in South Ossetia.
By then Putin certainly knew the score. He knew the Obama-Clinton 'reset' overtures
in 2009 were false and he saw what America was doing in places like Syria. And
so he acted. He thwarted US plans to overthrow Assad in Syria and Washington
began to turn very hostile. With bin-Laden dead in 2011, the US began to shift
away from the War on Terror narrative – later both backing and fighting ISIS
which arose out of the Libyan, Iraqi, and Syrian contexts.
By 2014 with the US-backed Maidan coup in Ukraine and the
employment of Neo-Nazi paramilitaries, Putin drew a line and acted – backing the
uprising in the Donbass and annexing Crimea which historically was part of
Russia and key to its defensive strategy. It was clear then that under the new Poroshenko
regime moves would be made to force out the Russian fleet based in Crimea and
replace it with a NATO one. Putin wasn't going to let that happen and so he
quickly annexed the peninsula.
In fact, it was suggestions of a possible re-taking of Crimea
in 2021 that led Putin to the current buildup and the militaristic
sabre-rattling he is presently engaged in. The troop presence on the borders of
Ukraine (of which a lot of the information and numbers are of a dubious nature)
is not something new – a point made by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
It would seem that Putin has recently increased their numbers but the message
has been clear for years – no more eastward expansion. No more NATO
advancement. No more missile systems on Russia's borders. Contrary to Western
propaganda they're not merely 'defensive' – that's an inaccurate depiction of
these systems and it obscures the larger set of offensive capabilities they
possess – that can be activated in a moment.
Putin is playing a dangerous game but the deck is stacked
against him and so he's considered the odds and has decided to make a stand.
It's an evil and dangerous one but no more than the forces arrayed against him.
The West for its part, led by the US and the UK has whipped up the situation
into a hysteria and has even alienated the leadership in Kyiv.
If Putin invades he will fall into the NATO trap and yet he
has already played into the arms of the engineers of Western propaganda and he
has moved himself into a situation that will not be easy to de-escalate. And no
doubt, conducting missile drills (as the Americans did in 1983) will not help
the situation. It was not his intention to invade and yet NATO is doing all it
can to get the shooting started and explode the powder keg that now sits on the
edge of Eastern Europe. NATO wants the invasion. The US wants Nordstream 2
dismantled. They don't care if thousands of Russians and Ukrainians die. It
will be video fodder for the propaganda mills. One is reminded of the US
media's role in the Balkans in the 1990's and the way they utilised images of
refugees to manipulate Western public sentiment. If Putin invades he will
likely set up a puppet-buffer state in the east of the country – dividing Ukraine
along the demographic and cultural lines that in many respects already (and
historically) have divided it. But then NATO will have its justification which
it needs once more in the post-Afghanistan context. The US energy sector and
the arms industry will profit from a conflict even if the markets are in tumult
for a season. The Atlanticist Establishment does not want to see NATO
dismantled (which it should have been in 1991), and so since that time they
have sought every opportunity to give it a new mandate. And given the state of
Europe and the disunity that haunts it, there are many not just in Washington
but in Brussels that also want to see NATO bolstered. The real hope for peace
will be found in those elements within Europe that distrust the United States
and are sceptical of NATO. The US is playing them too and the pressure is
immense but if they can work to de-escalate the situation without either Putin
or the US losing too much face – then it will ultimately stand as a defeat to
the US plan. The US will spin it but within the corridors of power there will
be rage directed at these sections of the European Establishment and it will
likely send the EU into political turmoil – and you can be sure the US will do
all it can to fuel the political clash and force out the figures who have
opposed its interests.
In the meantime we in the West are subjected to endless propaganda
regarding Russia. Much of it is false or badly reported out of context. Over
the past several years there have been many stories floated that were later
proved false and yet the news media never publically retracts them. From
Russian hackers to the 2016 election, there's been a steady stream of lies and
disinformation. It's evident the US Establishment is growing desperate as
they've turned to conspiratorial reporting, accusing Russia of every possible
deception – tactics that the US has long employed but are dismissed as
laughable when broached. It's convenient because it covers all bases and
whatever happens, the groundwork has been laid and the references have been provided
for US media and its corrupt hirelings to appeal to.
'Trust us,' is the message emanating from Washington. And so
once more the public is subjected to the same kinds of lies and deceit that
those in power utilised to start wars and invasions – twice in Iraq, and in
places like Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Panama, Vietnam, and the list could go
on.
The Russian regime is corrupt and wicked and yet it came to
power battling the corruption and wickedness which emerged after 1991- a
situation exacerbated by US manipulation of Russian politics, Washington's economic
collaboration with criminals, and the mass looting of the Russian treasury.
Putin broke the hold of the oligarchs and yet installed another corrupt and
authoritarian regime. Liberal democracy was never going to emerge in Russia.
There's no context for it and so the US which acted in a completely
anti-liberal and anti-democratic fashion vis-à-vis Russia in the 1990's, now
uses the ideological language of that system to brow-beat and impugn Russia and
the Putin regime. It's rank hypocrisy. Most of the world sees it but the
ever-ignorant, distracted, and propagandised American public does not and
perhaps cannot.
And while the US cannot reconstruct the ideological clash of
the Cold War, it turns to liberal democracy and juxtaposes it with anti-liberal
authoritarianism. This is the battle they wish to invoke and yet the student of
history won't be fooled for a moment.
Listening to NPR interview Vladimir Rouvinski, a Russian academic
in Colombia that seems to be a mouthpiece for the US line in the region, I had
to shake my head at just how low and ridiculous the campaign has become. With
credentials and connections to the Wilson Center's Kennan Institute (which has
a branch in Kyiv), and the Gordon Institute for Public Policy at Florida
International University, I literally burst out laughing at his statements. The
story was a hit piece against Russia and its recent diplomatic moves in Latin
America. Once again, Russia's defensive strategy is to go on the offensive. It
can't challenge the US militarily but it can make trouble for American
interests and like the US meddle within its sphere of interest, and so Moscow
has in recent years reached out to Cuba and Venezuela (both the scenes of
massive US crimes against civilian populations) and Nicaragua which was
historically a US satrap ruled for decades by the brutal Somoza regime. But
during the Cold War the nation went through a period of tumult and after the
1979 revolution was subjected to further US-instigated violence at the hand of
the Contra Death Squads and paramilitaries. Today, the former Leftist and
revolutionary leader Daniel Ortega has returned to power but he's no longer
driven by ideology. He's corrupt and in cahoots with the capitalist powers in
his country and even the Roman Catholic Church. He's become a self-serving
authoritarian but he remains in a semi-hostile relationship with Washington and
so it's hardly surprising that Moscow is reaching out to him. One more thorn in
America's side means less money, troops, and attention pointed out Moscow. And
once again, it's the common people who are caught in the middle of these
geopolitical chess games. They are the ones who will suffer while the evil men
in power scheme and seek to dominate.
Professor Rouvinski cast Putin's actions as detrimental to democracy
and argued that the US presence and liberal democracy have been key tools to
the region's security.
Such a statement reveals that either Rouvinski is corrupt or
historically ignorant. There's really no other way to interpret his words.
Latin America has a long history of military dictatorship, assassination, and
coup d'état. The US has played an overwhelming role in this process, installing
and backing dictatorships, overthrowing governments, and collaborating with
these governments to imprison, torture, and murder its citizens. This has
happened both during the context of the Cold War and after. The most recent
episodes were seen in the 2009 US backed coup in Honduras, and the 2019 coup in
Bolivia. Rouvinski's ridiculous statement went unchallenged by the NPR
interviewer. It was unbelievable and yet this sort of thing can pass without
notice in an American context. Whether corrupt or stupid, Rouvinski is an
academic clown, a wind-up toy for the American interests that control him. And
like a good lapdog he runs around offering his ridiculous commentary.
There is a story about Russian involvement in Latin America.
It's troubling to be sure, but the US has no moral standing, no finger to
point. It relies on hack academics like Rouvinski, think-tank propaganda mills,
and the corrupt reporters at outlets like NPR to do its work in the media. And
NPR along with the New York Times and Washington Post are the more
'intellectual' and 'serious' journalistic outlets geared toward the upper
echelons of the public that are actually engaged on these points. Most of the
public wades in the morass of info-tainment that comprises the major news
networks. Truly US news is in a sad and degenerate state. The person looking
for information must look elsewhere.
With regard to the contest between Russia and the United
States we have a case of wicked militarism acting in response to wicked
militarism. There are no 'good guys' in this fight and yet both sides are vying
to shape the narrative and deceive the simple. And the costs are potentially
great.