THE CONQUEST OF EUROPE
John Chuckman
Russia’s President Putin is reported to have said in a
conversation a while back that he could be in Kiev in two weeks. In our press,
this was reported as yet more evidence of aggressive intentions, but, given
even a moment’s thought, that is a patently false interpretation. It is also
further evidence, as if more were needed, of the level of desperation American
propaganda around events in Ukraine has reached. It is almost as though
America’s intelligence/news media alliance started mimicking the almost
forgotten Soviet apparatchiks of decades ago.
Yes, undoubtedly, the Russian military could be in Kiev in a
couple of weeks. The very fact that they are not only shows what nonsense we
hear from America and the coup-installed government in Ukraine. Clearly, Putin’s
words were to the effect, “I wouldn’t have to tolerate the mess on our borders
in Ukraine if I truly had aggressive intentions. For goodness sakes, use your
brains, I could be in Kiev in two weeks.”
This deliberate misinterpretation of a casual statement
stands out for me as one of the most pathetic of many pathetic things coming
from Western politicians and media. And it is deliberate, for if it were the
truth that the intelligence service of a superpower could only interpret
statements with such feeble understanding, the world would have entered a new
era of extreme danger, with idiots advising the commander who has his finger on
the launch button. But I know there’s no genuine danger of that. The
interpretation is intended only to shape American public opinion, never very
well informed at the best of times. It’s a sound bite not intended to provide real
information, just a momentary association of something very negative with the
name of Russia’s president, indeed one of a stream of sound bites broadcast recently
as though they meant something, as though they were news.
It is a classic method of propaganda, closely related to the
technique in advertising of repeating a phrase or slogan or jingle over and
over, no matter how silly its actual content is on analysis, and like all the
best propaganda, it starts with a truth no matter how insignificant,
incompletely reported, and removed from context. But there are two deeply
concerning aspects to what otherwise would just be garbage. First, it flows
from the writers and editors of what is supposed to be a free and open press,
not advertising agencies trying to sell personal hygiene products, and thus
demonstrates once more how meaningless is the term, “free and open press.” When
the American government has a point to make, even a point that is dishonest or
silly, in supporting some ill-conceived and dangerous policy, the entire press instantly
enlists to echo it across the land, offering saturation access to the public
that could not be bought for millions of dollars. At least in matters of
foreign affairs, American journalism does not exist outside the childish fantasies
of young journalism students thinking they are going to dig for the truth and
serve the right to know once they graduate. You know, the bilge about the press
being the fourth branch of government, the tribune of the people, and keeping
citizens informed.
But more worrying is why the government or the press in
America wishes now to cast aspersions on one of the world’s most important
leaders? It has been more than three decades since Russia and the United States
were commonly understood as enemies, each capable of obliterating the other.
Why would anyone want to look backward to that? And why would anyone
deliberately attack a man who has proved himself a sophisticated statesman, one
whose words and behaviors show more consistency than those of any of our
Western leaders, and especially president Obama who has not spent a day of his time
in the White House without killing someone somewhere and surely has matched
George Bush for lack of character.
Such cheap propaganda is symptomatic of aggressive intent. I
believe the United States’ establishment is starting to feel a new sense of its
relative decline in the world, and it is desperate to shore things up by hurting
new competitors. The so-called pivot towards China is one of its tactics, and
the expansion of NATO right against the face of Russia is another. Both are
provocative and risky. And I only wish the world could understand that the
United States is not that far from being a de
facto bankrupt. It has no money for anything except by the unsound and unethical
practice of printing more of it, knowing its special position as a world reserve
currency allows it to cheat holders of dollars around the entire planet with
their devaluation. And devalue it will, sooner or later, effectively leaving
most of the bill for its stupid wars to be paid by others.
Geography and many other factors, such as the distribution
of energy and other natural resources, say that Russia and Europe are over the
long term destined to be strong, natural economic partners. But the United
States has been Europe’s partner – indeed, a good deal more than a mere partner
since WWII - and it does not like the prospect of Russia in any way displacing
it. It is utterly backward thinking, but we are discussing brains driven by
hormones here, not by logic or good will. I recall at an energy conference I
attended during the Reagan era meeting a representative from the American State
Department whose main message was that we had to stop Russian gas pipelines into
Europe. As a believer in people freely buying what they need from others freely
selling what they have, I didn’t agree with him and said so, and the people of
Europe clearly weren’t convinced because many pipelines exist and many billions
of cubic feet of gas flow.
The United States has taken every effort to get some return
for its costly investment in a half-failed scheme to destabilize Ukraine, and
with each deft move of Russia, it has played the old “look out for the commies”
theme, just tarted up a bit so it doesn’t seem laughably out of date. The
combination of the expansion of NATO plus scare-mongering about Russia buys some
time against what I believe is inevitable. And minds driven only by the hormonal
impulse of being dominant – full-spectrum
dominance is the grotesque Washington
insider expression - are incapable of clearly analyzing a situation, regardless
of their intelligence and technology and information resources. And they are
certainly not capable of acting on behalf of the great basic principles of
rights and freedoms with which they sloppily wallpaper their every public
statement. They are blind to the chances they take, to the risks they expose
all of us to, and to the damage they create for the happiness and prosperity of
millions of people.
America’s elaborate dirty tricks in Ukraine were intended to
make Russia considerably less secure. You can almost imagine the buzz-cut thugs
at Langley having a good laugh over expense-account steaks and martinis when
they first thought they had succeeded, the laughter one expects from sociopathic
American frat-boys who’ve just played a very dirty joke on someone, as by
drugging some poor girl’s drink at a party and raping her. Perhaps the
intentions included a plan ultimately to base missiles in Ukraine near Russia’s
border, which would be a tremendously provocative act. Certainly it was hoped that
gradually Ukraine would become more western-oriented, although the prospect for
a poor country like Ukraine, one with shaky democratic credentials and not a
good record in human rights, becoming in our lifetime full members of Europe is
simply not in the cards. After all, the U.S. keeps pushing for Israel to become
part of major European organizations, but that is too much even for some of
America’s yes-men in Europe to accept.
Accusing Russia of looking out for what’s happening on her
borders isn’t an accusation, it’s what all states do everywhere. Goodness knows
the case of Cuba should provide perspective and food for thought. The United
States has needlessly hurt that country for half a century with its embargo,
many of the chief traditional products of Cuba having been things to satisfy
the American markets, such as sugar and tobacco. But an embargo alone was never
enough to secure the desired dominance. The United States invaded Cuba with a
proxy army of Cuban refugees it trained, supplied, and paid. It tried to
assassinate Cuba’s leader, many, many times, and it periodically sent terrorist
forces to blow or shoot up things in Cuba. Ships in ports were shot up, hotels
were attacked, and an airliner full of people was bombed. When Cuba asked for
the return of America’s base at Guantanamo, a base only leased from Cuba
originally under duress, the United States simply refused and still illegally
occupies the land half a century later.
Of course, America was quite ready to hurl the world into
nuclear war when it discovered that the Soviet Union had placed missiles in
Cuba as a way both of protecting its ally against new invasions and as
increased leverage in dealing with an often inflexible and aggressive United
States. The missiles were provocative, but most thinking people felt they were
not adequate cause for nuclear war. Fortunately, President Kennedy was able to
stand up against the terrible pressures of the military-intelligence
establishment and reach a negotiated settlement with Premier Khrushchev, an act
which many believe, including this author, later cost him his life in Dallas. Well,
all that gives you just some idea of how America responds to what it considers trouble
or meddling, even a hundred miles from its border.
We hear the accusation that Russia arms the rebels in
Ukraine, as well as the Assad government in Syria. My answer is that America,
which spends as much on its military as all others on the planet combined, is
also the world’s largest arms dealer as well as a ready covert supplier to
groups anywhere it deems as serving its interests, whether extremist groups, including
ISIS, set up to destroy Syria or the Nazi-like groups affiliated with Ukraine’s
new government and employed in its coup. America runs a virtual conveyor belt
of death machines and munitions to Israel to keep it well supplied in upsetting
peace throughout the Mideast and suppressing millions of people it took
prisoner half a century ago, a situation which has ranked in my view as the
world’s most dangerous until now. A great deal of the aggression and repression
of Israel have to do with the fact that their best minds recognize the
unfavorable situation into which they are locked: no population growth versus
high population growth for Arabs, the most highly subsidized national economy
in the world affording poorer prospects for most residents than their native
places would, an interminable series of wars and repressions and acts which the
world sees as atrocities, early dreams all soured by a sense of no way out, and
perhaps a sense of having committed a colossal blunder in starting it all.
So in a very real sense, both America and Israel, unwilling or
unable to deal with their tremendous problems in a statesmanlike, realistic,
and enduring way, dance a hideous danse
macabre, with the entire world forced to watch in fear and horror.
When you compare Europe today to, say, Europe of fifty years
ago, something more than a little disturbing becomes apparent. Then, despite
the height of the Cold War presumably giving reason for greater solidarity with
America, there were many independent voices in Europe. France had a
consistently strong and decisive voice, and it was determined not to be
subservient to NATO. Britain, today perhaps the worst example of subservience
to America in all things, also showed independence at critical points, as when
it refused to send troops to the holocaust of Vietnam despite great pressure
from President Johnson. Today, there are no independent voices, and despite the
clear, long-term interests of Europeans in having good relations with Russia,
we see country after country acquiesce to America’s demands for destructive sanctions.
Even Holland, a country we think of as fair and tough-minded, issued an interim
report on the destruction of Malaysian Airlines’ MH17 which told us nothing we
already didn’t know. That was clearly at the insistence of the United States,
unwilling to see its proxy government in Ukraine revealed for the violent and
incompetent operation that it is. NATO, an obsolete organization by any measure,
has been expanded, serving primarily the interest of continued American
hegemony in Europe, and America pushes the idea of every member spending more
on its military. The United States also has Europeans committing to plainly
idiotic purchases, as in buying the F-35, a plane one great American fighter
jet designer called the worst ever conceived. The plane cannot ever do what it
was supposed to do because it was foolishly commissioned to do a bit of almost
everything, and the Pentagon wants as many others chipping in to subsidize the immense
cost of salvaging something from the wreck. Perhaps the F-35 is emblematic of a
conquered Europe, throwing away money on junk because America expects them to
do so.
