By James Wilson
And now our politicos want Sessions to resign because he met with a Russian ambassador. How dare he! A Russian!
“The hysteria over “Russia-gate” continues to grow – as President Trump’s enemies circle – but at its core there may be no there there while it risks pushing the world toward nuclear annihilation”. – Robert Parry
The truth is if we want to mitigate climate change, and by extension keep most of civilization intact, we need to be working with Russia, not against them. And to accomplish this, our whole neoliberal paradigm needs to be seriously questioned. It is the West that is on the wrong side of history, not Russia.
Let’s explore the possibility that the whole underlying supposition is wrong. It is a false premise. Why is talking to Russia not allowed? Why is it suddenly taboo? After all, Nobody seems to ask that question. Why is it OK to talk to, say, Saudi Arabia, but not Russia? Why did Senator Al Franken ask him about contacts with Russia in the first place? Why does it matter if it’s Russia or not? It would be just as logical to ask about contacts with, say N. Korea. After all, Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak appeared in the White House visitor logs dozens of times when Barack Obama was in office.
We were at odds (perhaps legitimately so) with the old USSR, are we still so with modern day Russia? And please don’t use the Russian hacking and meddling in our elections as an excuse. There is absolutely zero evidence to that effect and it has been largely debunked by IT security experts (including Intel Vet William Binney. ARTICLE HERE, and by Robert Perry HERE). So that one gets zeroed out.
“Russia! A country that is no longer communist, that poses no territorial or military threat to Europe but wants to become an integral part of the European economy, a country that has no foreign bases, except in Syria, and that has no deep water navy patrolling all the seven seas, with drones and special forces bombing and raiding countries around the globe, as does the US.” – David Lindorff – Counterpunch.org.
They (and we) are making some fundamental assumptions that somehow Russia is our mortal enemy. What have they done to us to deserve such a status? Why would they even ask Sessions specifically about contacts with Russia?
Where does the United States get the nerve to moralize about Russia? Same place they get the nerve to label Putin a “killer” … a “butcher” … a “thug”. It would be difficult to name a world-renowned killer, butcher, or thug – not to mention dictator, mass murderer, or torturer – of the past 75 years who was not a close ally of Washington. – from an article written by William Blum.
Such Russia-centric accusations presuppose some kind of adversarial relationship with Russia, with no explanation of why such a relationship exists. Yet it does as we are reminded 24 x 7 by mainstream media. I ask people on Facebook and elsewhere what it is that they hate about Russia. What have they done? Typically they come up blank. One person mentioned that “Putin poisoned a political rival”. Well, no proof of that, but even if true, how many politicians have been murdered in the U.S. for mainly political motives? JKF comes to mind. So it mostly seems to be a “manufactured” hatred, with little real substance behind it. We are, when all said and done, emotional creatures. Logic and facts usually take a back seat. I think this is a good example of that.
WE ARE LEVYING ‘BIG BAD RUSSIA’ ACCUSATIONS FROM INSIDE THE NEOLIBERAL PARADIGM.
What do I mean by that? The neoliberal paradigm includes global capitalism as one of its major tenants. Global capitalism requires the expansion of capitalism to other countries in order to expand the “free market” space, as well as have access to additional natural and human resources for labor and materials to build products.
Our form of capitalism also requires infinite expansion, since shareholders need to constantly see an increase in value of their holdings. This is a never ending spiral. That means selling more products, which means more materials and (cheap as possible) labor to build those products. The hunger of the beast is never satisfied.
When John McCain talks about “World Order”, this is what he means; neo-liberal global hegemony.
JOHN MCCAIN: “I was certainly referring to the threats that we are now facing with this, stated goals of this administration, which would upset the last 70 years of a new world order which was established after World War II. Seventy years based on human rights, respect for the law, free trade. All of the things, aspects of this world order that took place after one of the most horrific, terrible wars in history. And I’m for maintaining it. And I’m afraid that it’s under assault from a variety of forces including, by the way, the Russians.”
Wow. This is SO “neoliberal” it practically defines the term. The sense of entitlement, hubris, American exceptionalism, and self-righteousness in this statement is astounding. What gives us (the U.S.) the right to determine what is or isn’t the “New World Order”??! It certainly is not Russia’s or China’s “World Order”.
And here’s another reference to “World Order” from Trump’s new NSA head General McMaster:
“McMaster signaled that Russia was an adversary, not a friend. And, in contrast to White House strategist Steve Bannon, who has called the European Union a flawed institution and expressed a desire to forge stronger ties with individual European countries, McMaster defended the post-World War II world order, saying it was important for maintaining peace and security”. – KTLA 5
Sorry General, I don’t think Middle Easterners would agree. Peace and security don’t seem to be working out real well if you consider 9-11 and the fact that over 1 million innocent civilians have been killed in the Middle East over the past few decades. I wonder if “peace” only applies if you are of European descent?
And Robert Perry writes: “We are supposed to forget that the Russian government for many years was collaborating closely with the U.S. government – and particularly with U.S. national security agencies – on vital issues. Russia assisted in supplying the U.S. military in Afghanistan; President Putin played a crucial role in getting Iran to curtail its nuclear program; and he also arranged for the Syrian government to surrender its stockpiles of chemical weapons. The last two accomplishments were among President Obama’s most important foreign policy successes.”
Well, guess what, small wonder, but Russia doesn’t want to play in our capitalist sandbox. They are fundamentally socialist, and refute the capitalist notion of infinite consumption and capital expansion. They realize that we live on a finite planet, and such consumption cannot continue indefinitely. Resources are limited, and rapidly diminishing. Capitalism, as a system, cannot sustain itself forever. It is destined to crash and burn (if the entire planet doesn’t do so first).
Russia knows this and refuses to be part of such madness. They reject the neo-liberal hypothesis. And unless (at least in the minds of the insane people that are running the country) the West get them under control, as the Earth’s resources dwindle, the West will lose and they will win. It’s inevitable, and the neocons know this. So, in neocon think, U.S. must ramp up support for war with Russia ASAP.
So what do we (and by “we”, I mean our government- both parties, this is not partisan – and the 1%ers) do?
We manufacture consent for war with Russia. How do we do that? We don’t take our war toys and go home, like most similar infants would do. Rather, hiding under the skirts of NATO, we move our big bad war toys to Russia’s borders (SO much more “adult” you know. Gotta flex those muscles when ya got em) in order to discourage Russian “aggression”. We make up a fairy-tale about them interfering in our elections, and acts of “aggression” in the Ukraine. None of these are true.
Robert Perry writes: Neocons inside the U.S. government – including Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, Sen. John McCain and National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman – then took aim at “regime change” in Ukraine, realizing its sensitivity to Russia. Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. government, called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and a key step toward ousting Putiwifn inside Russia; McCain cheered on Ukraine’s ultranationalists who were firebombing police in Kiev’s Maidan square; and Nuland was conspiring with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt on how to “glue” or “midwife” a change in government.
And so was born the “did you talk to a Russian” hysteria.
Once the ‘Big Bad Russia’ paradigm has been adequately ingrained in the minds of the American public (tip-o-the-hat to the Main Stream Media for this one), the government and oligarchs can use that as a framework to promote several neo-liberal agendas; war with Russia, and taking down The Donald and his cronies that want to promote détente with Russia. Two birds with one stone. Political poetry.
Neo-liberals cannot have that, they can’t have détente, it messes with the entire neo-liberal agenda! Capitalism must forever expand or die! Money must continue to flow to the top!
We want Russia’s oil, wheat, and various other natural resources resident on the largest land mass on the planet. We also want to maintain control of our current markets, such as the EU and India. Russia and China are the biggest road-blocks to our total neo-liberal global dominance. But Russia is not playing nice at all with us really really “exceptional” Americans. (see my article about Syria, oil, Russia, and our sick dependence on oil HERE).
We don’t get mad, we get even! So our “leaders” are very busy at the moment manufacturing public consent to blow them off the planet (read a highly disturbing article about our “war plans” HERE).
Let’s face it, neo-liberalism has failed us and the world miserably, it is the driving force behind wars, inequality, our plutocracy, ecocide and the likely demise of our civilization, yet we continue to view geo-political affairs solely through that lens. We need to examine the fundamental premises of the “Russia” accusations outside of that framework, and seriously question the limited and destructive neo-liberal paradigm within which they occur.
We have to entertain the possibility that Russia is right, and we are wrong (I know, it’s a tough pill to swallow). Our form of capitalism is unsustainable. We need to learn from our EU brothers and sisters that practice democratic socialism, and yes, maybe even from the maybe-not-so-bad Russians.
Contact the author at: email@example.com