FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Blaming Russia for Everything?

The Fox News website headline of November 20 was startling.  The world was informed that “Russian Bombers Threaten Guam”, which was an astonishing revelation.  What on earth could be happening?  Could this “threat” be a run-up to war?

But even Fox News had to report the US Pacific Command statement that “the aircraft were flying safely in international airspace and in accordance with international norms.”  There was not the slightest indication that there was any threat to Guam, but this didn’t stop other reports that “two Russian strategic bombers circled the US island of Guam last week in what US defense officials say is the latest in a series of nuclear provocations by Moscow.”

(Guam is an “unincorporated organized territory” of the United States  — a colony, in other words — whose citizens are not permitted to vote in US presidential elections and whose member in Congress is not allowed to vote on anything.  It lies 6,000 miles from the west coast of the United States and  2,000 miles from the east coast of Russia. In April 2014, President Obama declared that “the United States and Japan are also making sustained progress towards realizing a geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable US force posture in the Asia Pacific, including the development of Guam as a strategic hub.”)

It wasn’t apparent how US defense officials could declare so conclusively that Russia was indulging in “nuclear provocations” but details like that do not matter in the river of anti-Russian propaganda that is surging day by day.  The headlines are eye-catching — as well as mind-bending — and the allegations that Russia is intent on war are reaching flood levels.

On December 4 the US House of Representatives passed legislation demonstrating US official hatred of and hostility to Russia.  It is now official policy that the United States of America “strongly condemn[s] the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.”

The sponsor of the legislation stated that “The US, Europe and our allies must aggressively keep the pressure on Mr. Putin to encourage him to change his behaviour.”

It is apparent that these people don’t only want to confront Russia  —  they want war.

For once the legislators took their cue from the White House, because the president of the United States has said that Russia was involved in the shooting down of the Malaysian aircraft, Flight MH17, over Ukraine.  His statement at the recent meeting of the G-20 countries in Australia was the most objectionable and insulting made by any US president about Russia since the height of the Cold War, which he and his Congressional allies have now revived.  He announced that the United States was “leading in opposing Russia’s aggression, which is a threat to the world  —  which we saw in the appalling shoot down of MH17.”

There is no proof whatever that Russia was involved in any way in destruction of MH-17. The results of the inquiry are being kept secret by the western countries involved in examining the circumstances.  The final report by the investigating nations (including Ukraine but excluding Russia and, bizarrely, Malaysia, the owner of the aircraft)  has not been completed, yet the president of the United States — without a shred of evidence to justify his statement — declared that the shooting down of the aircraft was due to Russia’s “aggression.”

But aggression has for a long time been the trademark of western dealings with Russia.

At the G-20 jamboree the Australian government set the scene for a series of insults directed at President Putin by Britain, Canada and America.  On arrival in the country he was met by the assistant defense minister, the governor of the state of Queensland, and the secretary to the Governor General (who is head of state in Australia; the Queen’s representative).  To say that this was the ‘C’ Team is to understate matters. It was appalling rudeness to an important visiting head of state to be met by a trio of such officials.  It was a planned, calculated and deliberate affront to Russia, its president and its people.

The Chinese President, Xi Jinping, America’s Barack Obama and President Joko Widodo of Indonesia were met by the Governor General, His Excellency Sir Peter Cosgrove, as is the customary courtesy to visiting heads of state. But Mr Putin and his country were purposefully insulted by Sir Peter’s absence at the airport.  So, too, was President Hollande of France who was met by the Queensland Health Minister John-Paul Langbroek, an even further dive down the protocol chain. The government of Australia excelled itself in making it abundantly clear who it regards with disdain. This will not be forgotten by those who were insulted.

It should be pointed out that the Governor General is required, constitutionally, to accept the “advice” of the government as to his actions in foreign affairs.  Sir Peter, a most civilized person, would not himself have acted in such a crass and juvenile fashion.

The playground immaturity was continued by Britain’s prime minister David Cameron who considered it a great joke to say  “I didn’t feel it necessary to bring a warship myself to keep myself safe at this G20.”  He was referring to the fact that at the time of Mr Putin’s visit there were two Russian warships and two support vessels in international waters near Australia. The Australian defense department displayed more maturity by stating simply that “the movement of these vessels is entirely consistent with provisions under international law for military vessels to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters,” and the Australian destroyer Parramatta conducted a communications exercise with Russia’s cruiser Varyag, as is the courteous custom of the sea.  But Mr Cameron though it terribly witty to poke childish fun at Mr Putin by referring to Russia’s ships in the region.

What is indeed hilarious is the fact that Mr Cameron’s Britain has itself so few ships.  He and his predecessors have all but destroyed the Royal Navy, which has no aircraft carriers, no combat aircraft, and only a few other warships — ten submarines, six destroyers and a dozen frigates.  (I remember with pride but sorrow when the Royal Navy had two aircraft carriers, a cruiser, a destroyer squadron, a frigate squadron, four submarines and over twenty other vessels in Asian waters alone.)  It would have been impossible for Mr Cameron “to bring a warship” because Britain hasn’t got one to send.

In addition to insulting President Putin the G-20 gathering achieved nothing for the world that is in any way binding on those who attended. Although it was a farce of photo-ops and flatulent pomposity it succeeded in showing the level of hatred and contempt for Russia that is so evident in the governments of the United States and some of its allies.

The western media’s cover of Russian affairs is verging on what it was in the Sixties, when hysteria reigned about the Soviet Union.   Many of us thought that the West — the US-led NATO grouping — would relax its pressure on Russia after the welcome collapse of the Soviet Union, but this was over-optimistic.

On May 27, 1997 it was agreed that “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its member States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand”  would refrain “from the threat or use of force against each other.”

Russia has not made any “threat or use of force” against any NATO nation. It would be crazy to even hint at doing so because Russia wants peace and trade, especially with the Baltic states and Poland, which are major trading partners.  (As well as being, in the case of Lithuania and Poland, recent hosts to US CIA black site prisons in which victims were tortured by psychotic sadists.)

It is obvious that if Russia wanted to take over Ukraine it could have done so months ago without a problem.  The military forces of Ukraine are incompetent, and the Russians could have invaded and conquered Ukraine in about three weeks if they had wanted to.  But they didn’t and don’t want to do that.  Russia doesn’t want to squander billons of dollars on a pointless war, such as those of America on Iraq or in Afghanistan.

All that Moscow wants to do is to ensure justice and freedom for the Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured, pro-Russian inhabitants of the eastern regions of Ukraine — just as it did for the inhabitants of Crimea, who voted to accede to Russia.

The 1997 pact between NATO and Russia includes agreement that NATO will perform its mission without “additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.”  But in spite of this the US Land Commander Europe, General Frederick Hodges, said on November 23 at a press conference in Lithuania that “The US will keep troops in Poland and the Baltic states for at least the next year.”  According to the general this will not contravene the pact because “We have planned rotations out through next year. Units are designated that will continue to do this. There are going to be US army forces here in Lithuania, as well as Estonia and Latvia and Poland for as long as is required to deter Russian aggression and to assure our allies.”

In some weird fashion, if the US keeps the same number of different troops menacing Russia there is no “permanent stationing.”  How very clever.

The US House of Representatives and the US-led NATO alliance are being aggressive and confrontational.  But it is our lives and the future of our world they are playing with. Their belligerence would be understandable if Russia was in any way threatening the Baltic States and Poland.  But there isn’t any such threat. There is, however, a threat from western trigger-happy dummies who are spoiling for war.

Brian Cloughley lives in France.

 

More articles by:

Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.

Weekend Edition
June 22, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Karl Grossman
Star Wars Redux: Trump’s Space Force
Andrew Levine
Strange Bedfellows
Jeffrey St. Clair
Intolerable Opinions in an Intolerant Time
Paul Street
None of Us are Free, One of Us is Chained
Edward Curtin
Slow Suicide and the Abandonment of the World
Celina Stien-della Croce
The ‘Soft Coup’ and the Attack on the Brazilian People 
James Bovard
Pro-War Media Deserve Slamming, Not Sainthood
Louisa Willcox
My Friend Margot Kidder: Sharing a Love of Dogs, the Wild, and Speaking Truth to Power
David Rosen
Trump’s War on Sex
Mir Alikhan
Trump, North Korea, and the Death of IR Theory
Christopher Jones
Neoliberalism, Pipelines, and Canadian Political Economy
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Why is Tariq Ramadan Imprisoned?
Robert Fantina
MAGA, Trump Style
Linn Washington Jr.
Justice System Abuses Mothers with No Apologies
Martha Rosenberg
Questions About a Popular Antibiotic Class
Ida Audeh
A Watershed Moment in Palestinian History: Interview with Jamal Juma’
Edward Hunt
The Afghan War is Killing More People Than Ever
Geoff Dutton
Electrocuting Oral Tradition
Don Fitz
When Cuban Polyclinics Were Born
Ramzy Baroud
End the Wars to Halt the Refugee Crisis
Ralph Nader
The Unsurpassed Power trip by an Insuperable Control Freak
Lara Merling
The Pain of Puerto Ricans is a Profit Source for Creditors
James Jordan
Struggle and Defiance at Colombia’s Feast of Pestilence
Tamara Pearson
Indifference to a Hellish World
Kathy Kelly
Hungering for Nuclear Disarmament
Jessicah Pierre
Celebrating the End of Slavery, With One Big Asterisk
Rohullah Naderi
The Ever-Shrinking Space for Hazara Ethnic Group
Binoy Kampmark
Leaving the UN Human Rights Council
Nomi Prins 
How Trump’s Trade Wars Could Lead to a Great Depression
Robert Fisk
Can Former Lebanese MP Mustafa Alloush Turn Even the Coldest of Middle Eastern Sceptics into an Optimist?
Franklin Lamb
Could “Tough Love” Salvage Lebanon?
George Ochenski
Why Wild Horse Island is Still Wild
Ann Garrison
Nikki Haley: Damn the UNHRC and the Rest of You Too
Jonah Raskin
What’s Hippie Food? A Culinary Quest for the Real Deal
Raouf Halaby
Give It Up, Ya Mahmoud
Brian Wakamo
We Subsidize the Wrong Kind of Agriculture
Patrick Higgins
Children in Cages Create Glimmers of the Moral Reserve
Patrick Bobilin
What Does Optimism Look Like Now?
Don Qaswa
A Reduction of Economic Warfare and Bombing Might Help 
Robin Carver
Why We Still Need Pride Parades
Jill Richardson
Immigrant Kids are Suffering From Trauma That Will Last for Years
Thomas Mountain
USA’s “Soft” Coup in Ethiopia?
Jim Hightower
Big Oil’s Man in Foreign Policy
Louis Proyect
Civilization and Its Absence
David Yearsley
Midsummer Music Even the Nazis Couldn’t Stamp Out
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail