Cold War Redux
Dishing it to the RusskiesBy Philip Giraldi
February 17, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Unz Review" - One of the most astonishing news stories I have read of late appeared in Business Insider at
the beginning of February entitled “ ‘ The Russians are going to have a
cow’: the U.S.’s message to Putin ‘is a really big deal.’” The article
described how the Barack Obama Administration has decided to build up
“its military presence in Eastern Europe in an effort to deter Russian
aggression in the region.” The “cow” and “big deal” verbal effusions were attributed to Evelyn
Farkas, who, until recently was the Pentagon’s “top policy official on
Russia and Ukraine.” Farkas, for what it’s worth, is of Hungarian
descent and has made a career out of being suspicious of Russia. She has
the usual credentials in
academia so admired by the Obamaites and has served in host of
government bubbles but never been in the military. As is all too often
the case she and her peers will not be wearing the boots on the ground
if the United States goes to war over giving Moscow a “cow.”
According
to the article, the U.S. will quadruple its military spending in Europe
up to $3.4 billion for fiscal year 2017. The extra money will provide
heavy weapons and armored vehicles, including tanks, to America’s
Eastern European associates in NATO and also to non-allies including
Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Unlike previous assistance to Ukraine, the
new weapons are both lethal and capable of being used offensively. The
United States has also committed itself to bolstering its own presence
in former Warsaw Pact states to include Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic
Republics through an increase in bi- and multi- lateral training
exercises in those countries. American soldiers will be eye-to-eye with
those of Russia in a confrontation not seen since the Cold War ended.
The
article cites Tony Badran of the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies (FDD), who claims that “Russia is of course trying to
leverage the entire intervention [in Syria] as a way to lap up as much
real estate in the Middle East as possible.” The FDD is, of course, a
neocon outfit, which is not noted in the article, and the implausible
suggestion that Moscow wants to obtain “real estate” in the Middle East
which would be an enormous burden and liability is given a pass without
even the slightest editorial objection or contrary comment.
The
article also quotes an anonymous senior administration official who
explains that the more aggressive approach “reflects a new situation,
where Russia has become a more difficult actor,” referring again to
Syria and also to Ukraine. Well, maybe so if one reads the New York Post or
watches a steady diet of Fox news it would be possible to come to that
conclusion, but there are other issues at play, including genuine
western threats on Russia’s own doorstep combined with the inability of a
financial stretched Russia to engage in imperial ventures anywhere.
Moscow
is in Syria because the rise of a new Islamic militancy close to its
own heavily Muslim federate states in the Caucasus is a definite threat.
It did not initiate the crisis in that region which was instead the
fault of Washington due to its ill-advised 2003 invasion of Iraq,
creating a power vacuum and empowering terrorist groups seeking to take
advantage of the chaos.
Nor
did Moscow initiate the political crisis in Ukraine, which was also
enabled by the United States. Russia admittedly subsequently annexed
Crimea, which is a vital strategic interest as it includes Moscow’s
major warm water naval base, but it can hardly be seen as a move
motivated by desire to be expansionistic. Crimea was, in fact, Russian
territory for over two hundred years before it was administratively
ceded to Ukraine by the old Soviet Union in 1954 so it is not as if
there was no legitimate claim to the area when Ukraine turned hostile to
Moscow egged on by the State Department’s Victoria Nuland and others.
Moscow is guilty of not playing by America’s rules. As former senior CIA officer Graham Fuller puts it “…today,
although neocons in Washington will disagree, it is hard to build a
credible case that Russia—under Putin or any likely leader—is gearing up
to invade Eastern much less Western Europe. But yes, Russia is
determined to maintain regional sway—as other great powers do in their
backyards, especially when distant powers intrude.”
Simplistic
analysis that leads to a preordained conclusion contrary to what Fuller
has cogently observed is expected in the mainstream media but the
foreign policy consensus promoted by Washington is striking in terms of
its internal contradictions. Indeed, if anyone at this late date really
needed any evidence that the United States government is staffed by
lunatics this article about delivering cows should have been enough to
change the mind of even the most stalwart advocate of the progressive
nirvana launched by the pledge of “Change We Can Believe In.”
Frequenters
of this site are no doubt already aware that when the Soviet Union
collapsed in 1991 the western powers, most notably the United States,
pledged not to take advantage of the situation by initiating a military
expansion into Eastern Europe, which Russia would have to correctly
perceive as threatening given its own vulnerability at that time. The
dauntless globalist Bill Clinton broke that promise, enabling the 1999
accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic followed by the
addition of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Bulgaria,
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia and Slovenia in 2004.
Russia protested but did otherwise not react.
In
2008, Georgia, bolstered by pledges of support from neocons in the U.S.
as well as from demented Senators like John McCain, fought Russian
troops over two disputed enclaves South Ossetia and Abkhazia. McCain was
led to declare that “We are all Georgians now” but a cease fire was
quickly arranged by France and Russia withdrew its soldiers.
Fortunately, most Americans did not see that fighting Russia over
Georgia was much of a priority and the U.S. avoided another foreign
policy disaster, but more was to come in Ukraine starting in late 2013.
Ukraine
was deliberately destabilized by Washington by way of the infusion of
$5 billion supporting “democracy building.” Again the cry went up that
“we are all Ukrainians.” The second time around worked out better for
the hawks and the Ukrainian cause has been surfacing in the presidential
debates. Hopefully it will eventually go the way of the manufactured
Georgian crisis.
It
might also be noted that it is just possible that Washington is seeking
to repeat its destruction of the Soviet Union by outspending Moscow in
hopes that President Vladimir Putin will seek to compete and bankrupt
his country. If that is so, the crafty Putin is unlikely to take the
bait and it is more than likely that the net result will be the U.S.
going even deeper in debt for no purpose whatsoever, reminiscent of any
number of foreign policy failures over the past fifteen years. And
meanwhile the wealthy European countries will breathe a sigh of relief
as Washington again rides to the rescue in defending the continent from
the Red Menace.
What
Farkas and company fail to see is that the United States might well
have some outstanding issues with Vladimir Putin’s Russia but Moscow
does not pose a threat to the U.S. On the contrary, it is Washington
that poses a threat to Russia and any number of other countries through
its presumption that it has a right to intervene in the affairs of other
nations whenever it is so inclined. Moscow is neither able nor disposed
towards become an enemy unless it is backed into a corner and something
goes nuclear. That would, incidentally, destroy the United States so
where is the frisson of excitement in Russia being presented with a
“cow?” Beats me.
No comments:
Post a Comment