The dangers of Russophobia

Someone who is too young and does not remember the house UN-American activities and the troubles of the cold war, you should brush up. Today we are just steps away from a new cold war and a new Commission.

We were under siege, dear reader. As shown clearly by the files of this magazine, was overcome we attack Russophobia is just a variation of the anti-Soviet paranoia that was the defining feature of the 1950s and early 1960s years. “We went into the most dangerous confrontation with Russia since the Cuban missile crisis,” said recently the well-known (and often writing in the Nation) expert on Russia Stephen Cohen (Stephen Cohen) in the program, Amy Goodman Democracy Now! It got to the point and this reality we must now consider with the utmost seriousness.

An increased risk of open conflict between nuclear powers was talking about Cohen, it’s the most significant danger that we face. But there are other threats that should alarm those who care. Senator John McCain, pretend exuding the seriousness with which he likes to impress others, argues that any enemy of the ruling anti-Russian views is a “liar”. And he wants the ad hoc Committee began hearings on the newly made CIA concluded that Russia interfered in the November American elections. Corporate press, since the government-controlled New York Times and the list goes on, today hastily sweeps the traces of his shameful collaboration with the government, which it did at the peak of the cold war. The Salem witch hunters who refused to give their names to the outrageous website transferred hundreds of media, which, as they argue, the Kremlin manipulated.

It is also danger signs. Someone who is too young and does not remember the house UN-American activities of the house of representatives, the political pamphlet “Red channels: the Report of Communist influence in radio and television” and the terrible harm that they have caused, you should brush up. Today, we are just a couple of steps from the first and the second. Not Russia destroys American democracy (or what was left of it). Do the “American patriots”.

I believe that it is essential to consider our moment in historical context. Then each of us can decide, as did those who were summoned to the house UN-American activities: will accept if he will participate in the booth for crowd control and fear mongering, or reject the propaganda campaign as devoid of common sense and immoral, like all that they cook and was composed in the years of McCarthy? Finally, this question arose before us, this time is particularly acute for those who called himself progressivity. What are you heir to a confused and spineless crowd that called liberals of the cold war, or people clairvoyant and principled – even in the face of those ideological strikes that are daily inflicted on us corporate media?

Think about it. It is the urgent task of the day and the most important point because the machine of American propaganda thrown unusual challenge. Its efficiency and effectiveness is not the same as during the cold war. His own point of view, I want to state openly, directly and without any prevarication. The purpose of this propaganda onslaught is our consciousness, our minds. They constitute the subject of the dispute. If your mind and your mind surrenders to this blatant scapegoating, before this trumped-hatred and anxiety in the history books you will find yourself on the side of shrill ghosts of the cold war and the gullible alarmists of the past decades.

* * *

“Russian aggression” will go down in history as one of the most pernicious phrases of our time, because in its pronunciation not required no analysis, no reconciliation with the facts. The Russian attack on Ukraine, then the Crimea was stolen, although no they did not provoke it. Now they threaten an invasion of the Baltic countries. They cultivate the extreme right-wing nationalists in Europe in order to weaken the European Union. Russians are guilty of war crimes in Syria. They attacked us, distorting our democratic process and as a bone throwing victory in the elections of 2016 Donald Trump and his pack of “lackeys of the Kremlin”.

All this from the repertoire of our reigning Russophobia. Let’s try to understand what it is actually.

Each bid in the list above has four characteristics: (1) is written is accepted as fact, that is, literally; (2) confirmed and published evidence in support of written from unaffiliated sources is very small, and sometimes do not; (3) that one or the other form of misinformation and misrepresentation by silence; (4) it is a source of error. In the latter case, it is very strange. Our political clique is very successful desorientiert Americans, saying that Russia today is “an existential threat to the United States.” Believe it or not, but the Pentagon and NATO top turned this idea into a bargaining chip. But they seem to think that the nation that they are confusing their endless repetitions, nice and hard. But as far as I know, deceived people are not.

And now, in turn, briefly:

— Washington set the stage for the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, recklessly threatening the only Russian warm-water port on the black sea coast of Crimea. From the reports of the American and other media, this fact expunged — but it is still a fact, however it may be concealed. So we cultivate self-delusion. Incidentally, a lot of you have heard the painful cries of longing for the Ukraine of the Crimean people, saw a lot of protests in the Crimea after the annexation? I think not. Half an hour to read a history book, and it becomes clear why.

— There is no evidence that Moscow intends to carry out an invasion of the Baltic States. Will Russia risk war with NATO? Even the thought of it is ridiculous. Its military activities in the region (all of it — within the Russian borders) is defensive in nature and is carried out in response to an endless series of NATO excuses, fabricate, to advance to the East. This hackneyed stamp of the cold war: do aggression myself, but call defensive aggression response to Russia’s actions, creating a Foundation for further aggression. Always remember an imperishable statement of state Department spokesman John Kirby (John Kirby) made in October 2014. Russia is on the threshold of NATO, has thoughtfully warned this figure.

— Ask yourself the question: why should Russia weaken the EU if it benefits from strong economic interdependence and wants to work with him on a wide range of issues, including Ukraine? Russian Bank provided a loan to the National front of marine Le Pen; and now there were reports about some kind of agreement on certain issues between the ruling party “United Russia” and the far-right Austrian freedom party. Such contacts between non-governmental political groups and right-wing parties of Europe very little, but this time let’s believe the word Times: this context, “obscure” and not having obvious consequences. (Can’t resist the temptation and I note that the alleged Moscow’s intervention in European Affairs is very much like the years of political interference, which allows itself to Washington in Ukraine and other similar countries — just like in Russia.) Assuming that these contacts have some value, then Moscow can be attributed to only one plausible motive. The above-mentioned European parties oppose anti-Russian sanctions, imposed after Russia “for no reason” annexed the Crimea. These sanctions are detrimental, but the act entails opposition (although this simple truth is Washington has not learned).

— Is available to us the truth about the Syrian war except that it was awful, and that there are a lot of losses. In this respect, we are victims, too. So here I will behave as an agnostic, leaning neither to one nor to the other side. We pay attention, we assume that we can assume, but we know very little. I do not see any reasonable position you can take here. We are constantly invited to believe, but not to watch and not think. But to avoid false conclusions and to resist the influence of propaganda machine, it is important to look into the eyes of truth. The truth will have to wait and it should come from unbiased sources. In this respect, Western non-governmental organizations such as “Doctors without borders” is a lot of work, there is no doubt; but to call them impartial is impossible, because in some cases, their Pro-Western orientation becomes obvious. Similarly, “war crimes” today are too often politicized, making the idea that you have to believe, without having a clear evidence — and to be honest, none at all. Did Russia war crimes in Syria? It is impossible to tell neither “Yes” nor “no”. And The United States Of America? The same.

— The Nation magazine last week in its editorial demanded: show us the evidence of all this alleged Russian intervention in the American political process. Robbie MUK (Robby Mook), who led the election headquarters of Hillary Clinton, last summer, after a couple of hours after the first leaks from the e-mail said, and very steadily, that the Russians did. The Democrats were equally confident in their rationale. Since they sell makes me say: I’ll believe when I see proof, until then in any case. A few points in this regard. First, many highly qualified veterans of the security services, including the esteemed ray McGovern (Ray McGovern), today, say that the leak of information from the electronic mail is surely the handiwork of its people, and not the result of hacking. It also deserves careful study, although in the corporate media you won’t read about this one word. Second, assuming for the moment that Russia is to blame. But against the evil subversive George Washington’s campaign in cyberspace this leak is nothing more than frivolous gossip column. Thirdly, there is a more General context it must be borne in mind. Considering all of what in recent years the United States treated Russia a revolution on its doorstep, the harsh sanctions regime, endless war hysteria in Washington, the increased military presence of NATO in a few kilometers from the Russian border — the e-mail hacking is a very restrained response.

The first lesson for all Russophobes, but especially for their “progressive” variety: such an ecstasy of credulity will have to pay. This creates conditions for further strengthening the already dangerous tensions in the world. And win from it, first of all, the Pentagon, and its subsidiary, NATO, military contractors, and the war party on Capitol hill, acting in the interests of the first three groups. Ask yourself, liberals: do we want to join these forces? You suddenly decided to believe the CIA on the word, what would it say? You accept the truth that publishes the Times, for the truth, without a shred of hypocrisy — just because it’s Times? It is quite strange, if you remember the story of the activities of these organizations, where a lot of spots. Strange thing is that today Russophobic attack led by Democrats — people with a capital letter. Usually this was done by reactionaries from the right wing. It appears that you are Rip van Winkle, waking up in a completely different world.

The most unchallenged ruling Russophobia enhances the isolation of America in international Affairs. It’s been obvious for a few years, but we rarely talk about it. And this is another misconception. In fact, Washington still operates on the principle of the Bush-II “whoever is not with us is against us” — and the world is gradually inclined to the second camp. As a result of our efforts alone will not be Russian, but we.

There is no better example than Aleppo. In the case of Syria, our consciousness is the object of the propaganda campaign right out of the textbook, the father of modern PR industry Edward Bernays (Edward Bernays), as we have already said. Today, our “moderates” — those benevolent Democrats who were shot fleeing civilians and then bury them in mass graves (among other things) is driven out of Eastern Aleppo. And what do we have? And we have this. Russia, Iran and Turkey meet in Moscow, emphatically ignoring US, and declare themselves guarantors in the political settlement in Syria. And we have the admirable response of the Obama administration: no, it doesn’t work, and never for that. Will be watching to see how the US struggled to put a spoke in the wheels of this process.

And now we come to the important question of missed opportunities. Russophobes are plenty to rant about the evil of Russia and its treacherous leadership, but it is also fraught with its costs. The reality is that until Washington learns to cooperate with Moscow on many, many issues of mutual concern, resolve issues, he will be unavailable. And in some cases (Ukraine, Syria) costs of non-cooperation will be measured in lost lives and destroyed societies. The Obama administration spent many years on the humiliation of Russia, declaring that she was no more than a regional power. Let us finally recognize that this is another of our confusion, and one of the most destructive.

Lesson number two for Russophobes and their liberal fellow travelers: portraying Vladimir Putin as a sort of Beelzebub, you take on a certain responsibility. In this case, you have a stupid addiction to great-power rivalry and the concept of “indispensable nation.”

For reference. Anyone who is able to think impartially (Hey, is there such?), can not see in the Russian President’s serious and effective statesman, well versed in the history and the forces that are shaping it. I must add that this does not require his love. He proved his innocence in many ways. And this is one reason why political clique in Washington urges all of us to hate him. In my opinion, Americans should consider the problem of Russia in the plane of the primary and secondary contradictions antagonisms larger and smaller scale. The Russian, like everyone else, have many internal problems, and many foreigners terribly concerned about these problems. But to solve the Russian problem the Russians have, as I’ve said many times. And all these issues are secondary to the main issue of our century, which is the parity between West and non-West.

To understand Russia and its leadership within the aforementioned framework, means, face to face to face the odium of our most Russophobic and ask question about why this majority includes people who call themselves “progressive”.

* * *

“In the world there are only two of a great nation. The first is Russia, still barbarous, but most worthy of respect. Second … this is America, excitable and immature democracy, which knows no barriers. The future of the world lies between these two great countries. Someday they will collide, and we will see struggles which did not even exist”.

That’s really unlucky, so unlucky, I think every time I read this passage.

These are the words of French historian and critic Charles-Augustin Sainte-BEUVE (Charles Augustin de Sainte-Beuve), written in 1847, with exceptional insight. This is one of the first descriptions of that enmity, which today played out before our eyes. Six years later, a German thinker of the first called for the establishment of the Union of European countries against the growing tsarist Russia. Then came the heavyweights, such as Nietzsche and the famous French historian Jules Michelet (to my shame, in Russian he saw subhumans). By the 1870s the years, the idea of “the West” (now the transatlantic Alliance) has gained popularity. And so began the notorious idea of protecting the West from “the rest”, that is, from the East.

The story we need to know. This is our story. During the cold war crisis de Sainte-BEUVE, a long time simmering between “two great Nations” have reached the peak when we were ready to speak the language of our nuclear weapons that human life itself is not as important as our victory over the East in the face of Russian. The current bout of Russophobia is just a new Chapter in this history.

We have clear responsibilities. First — clear all to see. It is necessary “to go beyond our past,” as once said by Nietzsche. The second duty is to see the dispute between the West and non-West the way it really is, that is, to understand that it is senseless, rooted in the notion that to satisfy the aspirations of mankind can only be one political and social model. Thirdly, we must refuse to continue this fruitless fight. That is, to renounce it for the sake of global diversity, multiplicity of preferences and forms. This is a challenge for the 21st century. But noisy and rough fit of Russophobia that can happen to us, it is not that other, as the resistance to the new time.