Thread: The Distortion of Russia

The Distortion of Russia

One does not need to love Vladimir Putin to appreciate that Washington shares interests with Moscow.
By Philip Giraldi • January 6, 2016

With relations between Washington and Moscow at a low ebb, can simply talking to Russians provide hope that there might still be room for cooperation?

I recently returned from spending a few days in Moscow, speaking at a conference hosted by RT International, Russia’s global television news service. One of the few major countries I have never visited, Russia proved to be quite a pleasant surprise. Moscow was modern, clean and far removed from its gray socialist roots, a very “European” city in every sense. As my wife and I were driven into the city from the airport, the road turned on a bend in the Moscow River and suddenly the Kremlin walls, surmounted by the golden domes of the churches within appeared bathed in late afternoon sunlight. It was a once in a lifetime vision combining place, time and context that can be unforgettable, like the first time one recalls Gibbon’s words while looking out over the Roman Forum.

Admittedly, we conference attendees were being entertained in VIP style, to include a fabulous gala dinner with entertainment provided by the Russian Army Chorus and an opera singer performing pieces from Borodin’s Polovtsian dancers. Mikhail Gorbachev and Paata Shevardnadze were in attendance and President Vladimir Putin was a surprise speaker. The sponsors worked hard to create a good impression for the speakers, who came from twelve countries, and in that they were eminently successful as their hospitality was exceptional.

Did we know we were being manipulated? Of course, but we were careful not to regurgitate propaganda. On my panel, “Information, Messages, Politics: the Shape-Shifting Powers of Today’s World,” Wikileaks founder Julian Assange spoke by video link from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

I argued that security and privacy could indeed coexist in most countries but that it would require governments to reign in the extralegal powers that they have accumulated over the past fifteen years in their respective “wars on terror” and the creation of a clearly defined set of rules for police intervention into one’s privacy. Namely, one must go back to the old practice in many countries requiring convincing a judge to issue a warrant or the equivalent to undertake a clearly defined limited action based on probable cause. And, I added, the judge should work in consultation with something like an ombudsman, a non-government adviser, whose sole responsibility would be to make the case for not violating someone’s civil liberties. I concluded pessimistically that I see no chance of any American president doing the right thing, noting that President Barack Obama had basically rejected reasonable corrections on surveillance proposed during the past year.

I should perhaps unnecessarily point out that no speaker at the conference was coached in any way to adhere to a line, while many of the enduring insights derived from the experience were obtained from mixing with the Russian people. That was relatively easy to do because, even though my Russian is elementary, Russians have for some time been learning English in their schools from the first grade on up and are, unlike Americans, very well informed on what is going on in the world.

In my previous life I encountered many Russians overseas and so was prepared to note yet again that they are by and large like what most Americans believe Americans to be—hard working, friendly and somewhat chatty. Like nearly everyone else on this planet, the talk of Russians turns quickly to their children, schools, where they live and what kind of lives they want to have. They are quick to produce photos of their pet dogs and cats. They are also increasingly religious, with the Russian Orthodox church playing a leading role in the state. Christmas lights were on display everywhere, churches destroyed by Stalin are being rebuilt and there was even a bustling Christmas Market in Red Square.

But there was also a dark side that kept surfacing. Both ordinary Russians and those who are journalists or teachers kept coming around to the same issue: why does the United States hate Russians so much and why does the American press seemingly have nothing good to say about them? They were questions I could not answer in any coherent way. I observed somewhat defensively that Russia under Vladimir Putin had become more authoritarian, that the media has lost much of its freedom and that the old Yeltsin style gross systematic corruption has reportedly been replaced by a newer, more subtle cronyism version of something similar. And I mentioned both Crimea and Ukraine as sometimes mishandled in the government’s undeniable agitprop while also conceding that the Russian case was legitimate on many levels. I expressed my own view that the crisis had been engineered by Washington in the first place, seeking to bring about regime change in Kiev. Concerning RT International itself, I mentioned to several of its spokesmen and reporters that its coverage was frequently unreliable on subjects that are close to home as it was skewed to adhere to the government line. They did not disagree with me.

But somehow none of the back and forth seemed to answer the question and in retrospect I don’t think I have a good response. President Vladimir Putin has numerous critics inside Russia but he remains wildly popular and is viewed as a genuine nationalist of the old school, meaning that for most citizens he is perceived as behaving in terms of Russia’s actual interests. That has made him an appealing figure on the world stage. A recent opinion poll in the United Kingdom revealed that four out of five Britons would vote for Putin rather than their own Prime Minister David Cameron if given the choice. I wonder how a similar poll would play out in the U.S. as the Obama Administration does little to inspire, believing as it does in globalism rather than nationalism. Nor does it admit to many genuine national interests in foreign policy instead choosing to encourage tokenism combined with a bizarre desire for constant agitation to create new democracies.

As for the negativity regarding Russia, to be sure there are many older Americans entrenched in the media and government as well as in the plentitude of think tanks who will always regard Russia as the enemy. And then there are the more cunning types who always need the threat of an enemy to keep their well-paid jobs in the government itself and also within the punditry, both of which rely on the health and well-being of the military-industrial-congressional complex. And there will always be reflexive jingoists like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

But all that hardly explains why there appears to be little understanding in the media and inside the Beltway that a good relationship with Russia is indispensable, and not only because Moscow has the power to incinerate the United States if it is ever backed into a corner and motivated to do so. Russia has proven to be a good partner in Syria where it negotiated and carried out Damascus’s elimination of its chemical weapons in early 2014. It is also the driving force behind current negotiations to end the conflict completely. It has consistently been a reliable ally against terrorism, in recognition of its own vulnerability to ISIS and other Islamic militants. What Russia’s elected leaders do inside their own country should be largely irrelevant to America’s interests, but somehow the cart has been put before the horse, a practice not uncommon in the U.S. media.

Other speakers at the conference were as dismayed as I was by the negativity towards Russia and also provided some additional insights into why Americans just don’t get it. One European speaker joked that U.S.A. could stand for United States of Amnesia in that developments elsewhere in the world are subjected to a superficial 24-hour news cycle before being completely forgotten. Professor Peter Kuznick of American University observed that students in the U.S. rank low on science and math scores, which makes the news, but the area in which their scores are actually lowest is history. He quizzed a class of top students on the Second World War and asked how many Americans died in the conflict. The response was 90,000, which is nearly 300,000 short of the true number. How many Russians? The answer was about 100,000, which is 27,900,000 short. Not knowing something about that number means not understanding what motivates Russia. Kuznick observed that roughly 3,000 Americans died on 9/11. To use the numbers of 9/11 as a basis for appreciating the impact of the Russian war deaths would require the U.S. to experience a 9/11 attack every day for the next 24 years.

But there maybe is hope. I returned to Washington to read a short New York Times article by Professor Jeffrey Sommers of the University of Wisconsin:

The Syrian crisis presents an opportunity for a real ‘reset’ with U.S.-Russia relations. Policy and opinion makers in both countries poorly understand each other… maintaining progress can only advance in a stable world, not through upending states from Egypt, Iraq, Libya to Syria, while hoping democracy follows… The architect of U.S. Cold War policy, George Kennan, warned at the end of his life, in 1998, that President Clinton’s policy of advancing NATO east risked war… It’s clear Putin never intended to seize Ukraine, or even the Donbass. Instead, Putin’s actions signaled that the status quo over NATO’s forward movement must change. The Donbass was his leverage. Putin is a tough nationalist, but rather than fueling the fire of Russian revanchism, Putin is actually the one carefully dousing those flames. Putin wants partnership with the West, but is not willing to be its supplicant… The United States and Russia will not reconcile their worldviews soon. Yet they can pursue common objectives in the Syrian-ISIS crisis that over time could expedite resolution of that challenge.

One does not have to love Mother Russia or Vladimir Putin to appreciate that it is in America’s interest to develop a cooperative relationship based on shared interests. Ukraine, which is every bit as corrupt as Russia if not more so, is not a vital U.S. interest while working with Russia is. The regime change in Ukraine, which was engineered by the United States, created the current crisis, not Putin. Putin several times asked for dialogue, asking only that Washington show some respect to Moscow, a reasonable plea. This year, he has stated very clearly that his country wants to work with the United States. It is an offer that should not and cannot be refused by anyone who genuinely cares for the United States of America and the American people.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...e-hate-russia/

I hope everyone here will read this article, because in searching for articles on Why the West Hates Russia, this was the best most interesting one of all. I'm going to post some other ones for you, but this one summed up the actual situation in the best way, it seemed to me, which is the changes in Russia since the ole Stalin and USSR days and the commonality of our people, theirs and ours, who want and seek the same things. Why would we not be friends with them? Why would we allow people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham to keep US enemies when we aren't enemies and really never have been? Globalism, Money, Special Interest, i. e. the SWAMP.

Russia is a hard country because of its weather. But in spite of all that, it is a beautiful country and the people are truly so much like Americans with some differences of course because of our different political and economic histories and physical environments.

It's very important to our own national security and better lives to chart a new relationship with Russia based on truth, honesty and present day circumstances.

Why the Elite hate Russia

Oct 27, 2016 10:18 PM

In our previous article The Secret Truth about Russia Exposed, we elaborated on how Russia is a convenient enemy for politicians and specifically the Democratic party, to create an enemy that really, well - doesn't exist to distract and confuse voters. But like with any 'enemy' if you bomb a village, you may have some pissed off villagers. As we explain in our best selling book Splitting Pennies - the world doesn't work the way you see on TV - in fact, it works more closely as seen on Zero Hedge. Although Russia simply is just a country in the wrong place at the wrong time (which, throughout Russian history, seems to be a theme for them) - there really is a reason the Elite hate Russia. It's not because they're Xenophobic, although there's that too - it's because of several key factors that make Russia a unique power in the world, compared to similar countries.

1. Russia is an independent country. It's not possible to manipulate Russia via external remote control, like it is most countries. The Elite don't like that! Russia kicked out Soros "Open Society":

Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution. In a statement released Monday morning, Russia's General Prosecutor's Office said two branches of Soros' charity network — the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) — would be placed on a "stop list" of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed "undesirable" by the Russian state.

2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright military conflict. Some other BRICs however, that's not the case. Say what you will about Russia's military - it's on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to the US military. And that's not AN opinion, that's in the opinion of top US military commanders:

Late in September, we brought you “US Readies Battle Plans For Baltic War With Russia” in which we described a series of thought experiments undertaken by The Pentagon in an effort to determine what the likely outcome would be should something go horribly “wrong” on the way to landing the US in a shooting war with Russia in the Balkans.

The results of those thought experiments were not encouraging. As a reminder, here’s how Foreign Policy summed up the exercises:

3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average "Elite" who pretends to be internationally well versed because they had a few semesters of French. For example, when the diplomat Clinton was Secretary of State, she presented a reset button translating the opposite meaning... ooops.

"I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship, and so we will do it together.' ...

"We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?" she asked Lavrov, laughing. “You got it wrong," said Lavrov, as both diplomats laughed.

“It should be “perezagruzka” [the Russian word for reset]," said Lavrov."This says ‘peregruzka,’ which means ‘overcharged.’”

Yes, it's almost a certainty that if Clinton by some horrible fate is President there will be Nuclear war. Wars have been started over much more subtle mistakes. One would think, that Clinton would have had an advisor CHECK THIS before presenting it in a public ceremony, in front of reporters? How much more blatantly unprofessional can one be? If politicians worked in the private sector, they wouldn't last a day! How do these people advance so far in politics?

4. Plain and simple, the Elite do not control Russia. While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance. Or another good example is China, there's this fanatical talk that China can dump US Treasuries blah blah blah the fact is that China is completely dependent on USA and US Dollars, and will be for the rest of our lives. Maybe in 1000 years in the Dong Dynasty still to come they will rule the world but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Russia is one of the most highly misunderstood cultures in the West. Which is strange, because Russia is more like America than any European country:

Both Russia and America share huge landmasses with large undeveloped territory
Both Russia and America are predominantly white christian majorities (although in last decades, America tries to be more of a melting pot whereas Russia favors ethnic cleansing)
Both Russia and America fought against Hitler and the Nazis during World War 2, the defining event of the last 60 years

There have been numerous interesting situations where Russia helped America and America helped Russia on a number of levels, to learn more about it checkout the following books:

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

Most interestingly, during the Nixon administration Kissinger was prodding Nixon to partner with Russia that would, in Kissinger's view would create an unstoppable alliance, that no one could compete with such a superpower axis. But, it didn't happen, as there were 'neo-cons' who were against it, mostly Polish Catholics who have some deep genetic fear of any culture using the Cyrillic alphabet. Nixon instead chose China (what a mistake!) and created Forex. But the point being that, through a small slip of fate, "China" may have been in this alternative Kissinger reality the 'Great Evil Enemy' hacking our elections, as we drive across the Alaskan-Siberian highway without any speed limit, oil would be ten cents a gallon, and we wouldn't need to war with the Middle East.

To learn more about how the world really works, checkout Splitting Pennies the book, or checkout Fortress Capital Trading Academy.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...te-hate-russia

The acronym used in the article of BRIC means Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Why do they hate Russia?
The West is guilty of the same crimes it accuses Russia of committing.

By
Vladimir Golstein
OpinionPolitics 8 March 2014

Russia is not a superpower any longer. Russia's population is shrinking, and so is its military, political, and economic might. Yes, Russians have their oil money to organise Olympics or buy fancy flats in London, but Russia itself is a far cry from the big nasty "bear" that was invading Afghanistan, when I emigrated from this evil colossus in search of a political freedom so lacking at home. Yet, this cherished western freedom is being threatened by a stifling hypocrisy.

For reasons that are both obvious and complex, Russia, the main heir of the collapsed Soviet Union, continues to be seen as an evil country. So any politician down on his luck - Senator McCain from Arizona is a case in point - is more than happy to invoke the ghosts of the Cold War and use Russia as a stepping stone for his failing attempts to stay relevant. What could be simpler? Just get on the Fox news, or if you are more sophisticated, on the pages of New Republic, Weekly Standard, or NYT Review of Books, and pontificate about the need to get tough on Russia. You gain immediate access to the deep recesses of the American psyche raised in constant fear of the Evil Empire. The public is yours to take.

The same strategy works well in Great Britain as well, where anti-Russian phobia runs even deeper, into 19th century with its almost pathological and racist fear of Russia's rising power. That fear, by the way, has already resulted in the Crimea War of 19th century. (David Fromkin's 1989 prize winning study, A Peace to End all Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East offers a superb analysis of the power and geopolitical legacy of this fear).

But this combination of opportunism with self-induced blindness, clearly obscures the reality of the situation. Most importantly, Russians feel humiliated as a result of the collapse of their empire. And everyone knows you don't taunt or mock your defeated enemy. Western leaders, however, are forever ready to do so and while engaging in this morally dubious enterprise, they keep congratulating themselves for their moral uprightness.
Inside Story: Russian defence or dominance?

"Pussy Riot", "gay propaganda law", Olympics and everything else in between are the subject of endless moralizing, while Western scandals and abuses are dismissed as the sign of the healthy democratic process.

The situation in Ukraine reminds of Moliere's famous play Tartuffe in which the main character is a selfish and manipulative person, who pursues his materialist interests under the guise of piety. Russia falls into its role of Moliere's gullible Orgon, while the west plays a convincing Tartuffe.

Dealing with such an exotic country as Russia, separated from the West by its unique geography, history, religion, and political system, the West has fully internalised utterly undemocratic and hypocritical attitude captured by the maxim: "quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" (What is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to an ox). Furthermore, as late comers to the Western civilisation, Russians themselves seem to accept this unhealthy attitude without challenging it.

This situation has persisted after the collapse of the Soviet Union Despite its self-congratulations on the triumphant power of democratic values and its demands that Russia treats its citizens and neighbours with equanimity, the West continues to lecture it on its inadequacies. Consequently, Western militaristic adventures be it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, or Kosovo are disguised as some sort of noble and moral endeavours.

Russia's assertions of its country national interests are presented, however, as an act of blatant aggression. One would expect that the endless amount of economic, political, social, and military abuses that we witness around us would make modern day Tartuffes more modest in their pious claims, but it doesn't.

Furthermore, if the West preaches equality but treats other countries as second best, why can't Russia do that too? Why can't it treat Ukraine in the same way it has been treated by the West? And if Russia is the subject of double standards, was the West lying to the Russians all along, convincing them that there's nothing to fear and can peacefully disarm and withdraw, while at the same time secretly expanding NATO towards its borders? To push the analogy with Moliere's play even further, Tartuffe is not just a sanctimonious hypocrite; he eventually tries to repossess the house of Orgon, whose gullibility he uses precisely for that purpose.

I suspect that the collapse of Ukraine has brought this fact to the surface, and Russians - in the manner of Orgon - suddenly realised that they've been taken advantage of, that Tartuffe wants to re-possess their house, that all these assurances that Russia is an equal member of G8 were empty talk. It can see nuclear arms at its border, which the West will surely place there after it buys Ukraine out of its economic crisis. Western response? Blame Russian aggression again. It is a classic case of blaming the victim. Now the West will surely surround Russia with nuclear arms.

I hope that the West will come back to its senses, sit at the table and negotiate with Russia a solution to the Ukrainian crisis and create a military neutral space there. Because if it doesn't, the next Russian political leader might be less accommodating than Putin, whose foreign policy was to give the West everything it wanted while getting very little in return.

Like the US, the UK, and France, Russia has its legitimate national interests that have to be defended. Why should Russia tolerate NATO at its borders and the potential loss of the Sevastopol navy base to the modern-day Tartuffes?

Vladimir Golstein teaches Russian literature and film at Brown University. He was the 2013-2014 Pembroke Center Faculty Fellow. He is the author of Lermontov's Narratives of Heroism(1999) and numerous articles on all major Russian authors. He was born in Moscow, went to the US in 1979, and studied at Columbia and Yale Universities.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...838387692.html

My fellow Americans, it's time to stop hating on Russia, and start a new positive relationship with this remarkable country and really wonderful people. We have to remember that we might be speaking German or Japanese or not be here at all, but for the Russians. At minimum, we owe our WWII Ally, Russia, a fair look, a reason-based chance, a fresh relationship, and honest diplomacy. And perhaps more importantly, we owe it to ourselves to enrich our own lives through a new relationship with one of the most important countries in the world with whom we actually have more in common than we have differences.

Remember that billions and billions of dollars spent on NATO ride on an enemy relationship with Russia. That's why our government tells US we're supposed to hate on Russia. That's why it lies to US about the real situation in Crimea and doesn't tell US at all about the ethnic discrimination against Russians living in Eastern Ukraine by the Ukrainian government.

It's why our INTEL community is willing to break the law and violate the US Constitution to try and stop Trump.

This is our country, we control it, and we decide who are friends are. Are our friends a nation of people who steal our factories and invade our borders? Are our friends a nation that would threaten US with a flood of deadly narcotics and terrorists? Are our friends a nation of people run by a government that would tell US they aren't going to buy our corn any more that they'll instead buy it from Argentina and Brazil?

Are we now such a weak nation that we would succumb to such threats from a "friend" because we want to stop illegal immigration, build a border wall to aid that goal, and renegotiate a bad trade deal? Hmmm, no, we're not. This is where the rubber meets the road, where we stand up for ourselves and sell corn to Russia so they can have Tacos and Tamales, too.

The fact that Communism is dead in Russia and the so called West continues to stock fear against the Russian Federation really calls into question the whole legitimacy of the Cold War, that we were locked in a struggle against a real evil and was instead nothing more than an anti-Russian polemic. This, a polemic that was, in many ways, a continuation of an anti-Russian polemic that was the roots of the Soviet Union itself.

Yes, the whole Cold War was not because Russia was our enemy, it was because they were afraid of US, they were afraid that we would attack them, Russia never had nor has any desire at all to hurt the Americans or the United States. They went to Cuba for a missile site to try to have a means to defend themselves against an attack by US on them or increase the detente to prevent such an attack to begin with.

A lot of money was made from the Cold War by the those in our Military Industrial Complex, the very MIC that Eisenhower warned about, the same one that John Kennedy acknowledged. It was a farce based on a false premise and many many lies. Was life hard in Russia after WWII? Oh my God, it was horrific. Were special measures required to get through that awful period? Of course, and when you've lost 20 million people and billions and billions of dollars fighting a war that they fought much longer than we did and a war we would not have won with them, your country is devastated.

Their weather and climate resulted in massive starvation in those days. There had to be a different system than ours to work there. The Russians did the best they could with what they had to work with. The bottom line is Russia was there for US, we were there for them, they survived without a single dime of help or money from the United States after the war. They were basically isolated on all things by the world, a very unfair position for them to be in after what they'd gone through for the world, and it's time to recognize them and appreciate them with the respect they deserve, honest diplomacy to which they are entitled and fair trade that benefits our country and people as well as the nation and people of Russia.

If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

- Ronald Reagan 1983

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, the whole Cold War was not because Russia was our enemy, ...

...

Their weather and climate resulted in massive starvation in those days. There had to be a different system than ours to work there. The Russians did the best they could with what they had to work with. The bottom line is Russia was there for US, we were there for them, they survived without a single dime of help or money from the United States after the war. They were basically isolated on all things by the world, a very unfair position for them to be in after what they'd gone through for the world, and it's time to recognize them and appreciate them with the respect they deserve, honest diplomacy to which they are entitled and fair trade that benefits our country and people as well as the nation and people of Russia.

"Russia, Russia, Russia, ...", except for one thing. Until it finally broke down, "Russia" was not Russia at all. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, The USSR, a communist federation. It was the first territory in a global campaign to put the world into a global communist order, Comintern. The rise of Maoist China and the Soviet Union's entry into WWII put an end to it, but communism continued to be a global movement and the Soviet Union was largely responsible for its spread.

Confusing the Soviet Union with the Russians is an easy mistake to make, but still very wide of the mark. And my point is that like the Soviet Union itself, it is easy to conclude that the Cold War was never about communism, but rather hostility to the Russians as a people and a culture. And now that the threat of communism out of the East in Europe is no longer credible, the fact that we continue to incite against the East makes it an even easier conclusion.