One would think from recent overwrought headlines, that the American people were clamoring for more confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia and just got had in this election! Hillary’s motto should have been, “Avenge South Ossetia whatever the cost.” No one believes that of course.
The whole thing is obvious propaganda along with the corrupt media noticing for the first time in 2016 that there’s a lot of crap on the internet, which they have attacked in a coordinated campaign as Fake News.
They and the Democrats are using this and the Russia angle to avoid soul searching on the crimes of the Clintons and the limits of their anti white identity politics. They want to pin their loss on “fake news,” as if so much of the real news had little effect. I concede that maybe Russia had something to do with Wikileaks. I’ve not seen definitive proof, and some of the stories that come out are either unsourced, contradicted by verifiable facts (no RNC leak), or are otherwise suspicious, conflating the actions of individual Russians with the Russian government. We do know hackers are often self-motivated vandals by nature, whether it’s the group Anonymous, Brad Manning, or Julian Assange.
But if Russia had an opinion on the election and tried to tip the scales by releasing embarrassing emails of one of the two political parties, so what? Both parties begged borrowed and stole to get opposition on the other. Did we forget the legion of women claiming (completely unverifiably) that Trump groped them in the days before the election? No doubt the Russians preferred him to the status quo, including that of Hillary, who was the architect of numerous idiotic foreign policy interventions. In the end, the American people still got a say so, and Trump was the peace candidate. Further, Wikileaks would not have any bite if there wasn’t so much corruption revealed in the leaked emails, whether it was Clinton getting debate questions, calling favored ethnic groups nasty names, or the DNC screwing over Sanders in the primaries.
Finally, our pearl clutching on this is a little hard to take seriously. The US was clearly behind the Ukrainian coup, which backfired tremendously. Just as it’s behind a goodly swath of the Syrian Civil War, in which “moderate rebels” cooperated with al Nusra and ISIS in destroying a previously peaceful and orderly country. That war is now thankfully coming to an end, due mostly to Russia’s intervention. The US has openly supported and funded candidates in foreign elections. Hacking emails is quite a bit less intrusive under the circumstances.
But Russia will continue to be treated as a bogeyman for at least three reasons. First, it’s leadership rejects liberalism, both the good kind and the bad kind, and is traditionalist and authoritarian. LGBT is now the preferred moniker among Russians for do-gooder western liberals, who are opposed by the revived Orthodox Christianity of the Russian people. Where Americans see human rights, Russians see imposition of foreign decadence. Putin is a symbol for an effective authoritarian nationalist bringing about a renaissance in a country that was an economic and political basket case during the Yeltsin years.
Second, NATO, and Americans reared on NATO brinksmanship, direct their efforts chiefly at containing Russia. NATO was unwisely expanded to include former Soviet Republics after the fall of Soviet communism, and this orientation to Russia requires a substantial and continuing U.S. investment in military power. There are many people with a stake in this, including defense contractors, otherwise obsolete “Sovietologists” in the State and Defense departments, and those who generally want a world where the “international community” (i.e., the United States) can call the shots worldwide with impunity, even on such dubious activities as regime change in Libya and Syria, and even where those called shots have no obvious connection to the interests of the American people.
Finally, there is a long-standing emotional animosity to Russia, which is never directed at other equally authoritarian regimes. We hear endlessly about Russia’s apparent containment of critical journalists, but this is commonplace in Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Iran, and even Mexico. Their facilities at the Sochi Olympics were mocked, even though China’s and Brazil’s were little better, and the latter was positively dangerous. And this all goes back to England and the Crimean War, in which classically liberal British absolutely hated Russia and all things Russian, labeling them backwards, authoritarian, and dangerous, long before the appearance of Communism. Their traditionalism, concept of the state, and prospect of limiting British hegemony all made the press and British leadership of the day lose their way, teaming up with the monstrous Ottomans to wrestle away Crimea from Russia in the 1850s. The anti-Russian feeling has persisted and extended to the United States, particularly by American Jews for whom a nationalist Russia is equated with anti-Semitism, becoming exaggerated even after the peculiar (and arguably anti-Russian) Soviet episode was undone.
Trump is following a sensible policy regarding Russia, namely, avoiding unnecessary confrontation, even while recognizing it may not be an ally strictly speaking. In this, he has shown more wisdom than the elites of both parties. If the Russians recognized this reality and wanted to tip the scales, it should be cause for concern, but more because our legacy policy is so fanatical and bellicose against a country that could do us a lot of harm if we were to get involved in any kind of conflict and, furthermore, could do us a lot of good in the war against radical Islam if we were able to find a way to cooperate more effectively in that regard. The Fake News talk is an attack on Trump’s legitimacy and a surprisingly non-cosmopolitan line of argument from those who otherwise say we should bow before the “International Community,” by which they mean the suicidal leftist elite of Europe and the anti-western elite of the Third World.
Subscribe To This Feed
Excellent post. Agreed all around.
I second Mr. Pollack’s comment.
Do not for a moment think Russia has our interest in mind. They are dangerous and besides China the only nation state that could have an existential threat to our way of life. And do not for a moment think Russia turned the tide in Syria. Try over 50000 kinetics strikes from CENTCOM and US advisors to include JTACs please do not give Russia credit for American troops on the ground and in the air. Russia can barely get a section in the air based on readiness—their carrier had to be tugged to get on station. And as for the internet hacking only three nations post a true cyber threat: Russia, China, and PRNK. I do not care if its Sony or WikiLeaks to influence public opinion, they attacked US sovereign property and that is wrong no matter the political side it fell on. CIA has learned a lot since 2002 and do not for a moment think those analysts, station chiefs and agents have a political agenda. I am not on one side or the other but remember both hands are dirty after this political season.
http://www.jcs.mil/Media/News/News-Display/Article/571819/dempsey-russia-terrorists-cyber-among-top-threats/
http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/07/09/gen-dunford-russia-is-top-us-national-se?videoId=364891824
I do think Russia is dangerous, and not least because it has the world’s second largest nuclear arsenal. Thus, it makes sense not to have bad relations them to the extent possible. And the same goes for China. In both cases we should look out for our interests, but part of our interest is not needless confrontation when there is no obvious upside for the American people. Part of foreign policy realism is recognizing that other nations have interests too, and they can’t simply be ignored and acting against them will lead to confrontation and conflict.
As for the division of responsibility for turning tide in Syria, it seems to me that we didn’t get terribly serious until the Paris attacks and, even then, still were anti-Assad regime. Russia cooperated with its friend the Assad regime, and a combination of their boots on the ground and air strikes from Russia, Syria, France, and, yes Centcom helped turn it around. But at the same time we were bombing ISIS, we were supporting anti-Assad rebels including al Nusra (i.e., local al Qaeda affiliate). One part of our government is doing one thing (the CIA) and the DoD is doing another. This seems a rather lunatic way to defeat a rebel group, because we were simultaneously trying to defeat its biggest enemy, the Syrian government.
https://mishtalk.com/2016/06/25/syrian-madness-us-backed-rebels-fight-us-special-forces/
The real thing going on is not terribly complicated. We’re taking the Saudi side in a Saudi-Iranian struggle for Mideast supremacy. Why exactly–other than their ample supplies of oil–is not entirely clear. Thus we’re anti-Assad regime and anti-Houthi rebel in Yemen. And Saudis and the other Gulf States are mildly pro ISIS and definitely anti-Assad. Thus we are, in spite of our formal opposition to ISIS, at least in certain quarters of the government mildly pro-ISIS in the hopes they’ll weaken the Assad regime. And exhibit A is that we’re still formally against the Assad regime. Exhibit B is that we have not denied blocking regime forces against ISIS-Lite al Nusra. And Exhibit C is that we know a lot of the arms and material and people in the “moderate opposition” have joined ISIS or al Nusra with our money, arms, etc. in tow.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408
https://www.rt.com/news/360690-us-arms-nusra-syria/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-with-terrorists-like-al-nusra-its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-10319370.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/23/russia-is-launching-twice-as-many-airstrikes-as-the-u-s-in-syria.html
Well, looks like Europe needs more truck control.