The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth. Too often we hold to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a predetermined set of impressions. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
==President Kennedy at Yale, 1962.
The world is a much more dangerous place as a result of America’s determination to save it.
A proper military analysis of the situation in 1945 would have shown that the prospect of Russian armies invading Western Europe was a fantasy, like Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction ready for launch in forty-five minutes.
A wider look at history shows that a strongly interventionist US foreign policy is nothing new – though the current power to intervene globally is.
President Woodrow Wilson, so determined to remake countries in the American image after the First World War. His mixture of benevolence and ruthlessness may be summed up in a dispute with Mexico in 1913, when he announced ‘I will teach the Latin-Americans to elect good men’ followed by bombarding the town of Vera Cruz.
In 1945, the USA dedicated itself in Wilsonian language to bringing ‘democracy and freedom’ to the countries occupied by the Soviets at the end of the Second World War.
The goal was high-minded. But there was a puzzling refusal to acknowledge the Soviet claim that two invasions by Germany in twenty-seven years made the firm control of Eastern Europe essential to Russian security.
Soviet statistics, always dubious, have never provided a wholly reliable picture of national income. But the scale of the devastation, involving at least twenty-two million and possibly twenty-seven million military and civilian deaths, speaks for itself. (Nations have long memories, Russia deservedly so)
Stalin’s attitude to the so-called world proletarian revolution is essential to understanding his personal and political motivation. He was, like the despot throughout the ages, principally concerned with his own survival rather than with ideological issues.
He abandoned the grand global ambition of the world proletarian revolution in 1924 when he proclaimed that, henceforth, the aim was to be ‘socialism in one country’. To believe that he remained at all times a devout ideologue is to misread his character.
The determination of the West to see every Soviet move as explicable in terms of the pursuit of the world proletarian revolution provides one of history’s great ironies: the West took Communist doctrine more seriously than Stalin.
Given the German invasions, it would not have mattered whether the government in Moscow had been Communist, Tsarist or Social Democrat. It would still have insisted on firm control of these countries through which invasion had come; and bound to regard with deep suspicion any attempts to prevent it. In any case, Moscow could never forget that it was British and French policy in the interwar years to make Eastern Europe a barrier against the Soviet Union, even to consider – crucially – allowing Hitler a free hand against Russia.
The Cold War, all too clearly, was as unnecessary on the part of the West as it was potentially fatal to mankind. It is also plain that its start was predominantly the fault of the Americans not the Soviets – though the latter remain, in most eyes, the villains of the piece. Since history is largely a series of myths, reiterated according to their acceptability, this view has been inadequately unchallenged, despite some impressive ‘revisionist’ history available in the USA itself.
The myth of Soviet blame remains readily, even eagerly, swallowed. The alternative is the disconcerting thought for the West that forty years of very high risk could have been were averted and that forty years of heavy expenditure was unnecessary. Pride in having ‘won’ the Cold War would have to be replaced by shame that it had ever been allowed to develop. It would also follow that the USA, the world’s dominant power for over half a century, was incapable of intelligently pursuing the primary aim of foreign policy: peace. It implies something fundamentally wrong with the American approach to the rest of the world, that it is capable of seeing states which are not a real threat as enemies. Any state which is treated as an enemy is always liable to become one. American foreign policy is at least as likely to conjure up foes as it is to maintain friends.
The most obvious moment for winding down the Cold War was the death of Stalin in 1953 and the peaceful gestures of Malenkov and his colleagues. This was chosen by Dulles as a moment of weakness in which to ‘crowd the enemy’.
The Secretary of State had become a crusader who wanted nothing less than surrender. To say he positively enjoyed the Cold War might be an exaggeration. But there is no question that the contest provided him with a sense of political and religious fulfilment and made him one of the world’s most powerful men. (The Dulles brothers were traitors, dealt with the Nazi’s prior to and during the war and, in my own opinion were corrupt to their very core)
Generals are more experienced in the task of subjugation. However admirable may be the qualities of military men, they are liable to be excessively conservative by nature and training. Two men provide some exceptions to the general rule: Generals Eisenhower and de Gaulle. The latter proved a wily politician and a radical president.
It was Eisenhower who underlined a vital reason why the Cold War was so difficult to call off: the military-industrial complex. Had that phrase and that warning been uttered by anyone on the Left it would have been seen as just part of a traditional phobia about ‘vested interests’. From Eisenhower it was a very serious warning.The interest of the military in large military budgets (and more generals) was all too plain. If generals were appointed to top government posts, they would by instinct promote higher defence spending. And if they were recruited, as they regularly were, to lucrative positions in the defence industries, then the power of the complex was complete. This trend was to become even more marked after the end of the Cold War when it seemed at first as if defence budgets might be endangered. The stakes were enormous, the fortunes made were vast. The money available for promoting the cause of the industrial complex was almost unlimited. And since the cause of national defence was being promoted, the extent of the Communist threat had to be promoted. Those of the right political persuasion who wanted to stress the Soviet menace in print or by any other means could always rely on the support of the complex. (If this issue has changed, it is that the MIC and all associated, in finance, industry and those of the revolving door of the politicians, have made it far, far worse as the intractable, dangerous ruler of American foreign policy)
==America and the Imperialism of Ignorance: US Foreign Policy Since 1945 (Alexander, Andrew)
The American people have been intentionally dumbed down for generations, but at an accelerating rate and as such are easily manipulated, more than ever it seems, into believing the total propaganda and lies puking forth from the MSM, the floors of Congress and the executive branch concerning the “threat” from Russia. When a national lie survives generations it becomes truth to the purveyors of the lie and as real as any reality, but the beneficiaries of the lies seem to just get richer, more powerful and entrenched.
The documentary evidence from the former Soviet Union, as well as within the United States and our allies, indicates decisively that the Soviet Union was never a real threat to the sovereignty of the United States nor the nations of the world. In fact, in the early stages of what became the “Cold War” (our creation) there is much to indicate that Stalin and his foreign minister sought and hoped for a constructive relationship with the “West” and America. It was America that created the perceived threat from Communist Russia. If the Soviet Union did to America and the world what America and the British did to them and much of the world, including our supposed allies in Europe, in the post-Second World War world we would have “nuked” them long ago.
The inconvenient truth is that America, as a nation, has virtually never not been at war. Not to say that the Soviet Union and Stalin were daisy’s on a spring day, but their record does not come close to the external mayhem, regime changes, coup d’é·tat’s, and insidious policies such as the bloody subterfuge of the CIA/NATO directed right-wing neo-Nazi Gladio Armies terrorizing our allies in Europe and Turkey over the past 60 years. To doubt that the Soviets and subsequent Russian leadership were not aware of what we were doing throughout the world, particularly in their very back yard, would be ridiculous.
America has been invaded once, the minor, though psychologically important War of 1812. The Soviet Union lost over 20 million people during their astoundingly heroic defense of their homeland, without which, the Germans very likely would not have been defeated, despite the American mythology of our status as Europe’s saviors. America organized a coup in not only Russia’s immediate sphere of national influence, we did so in a state that they have bled for over many centuries and that was and is still viewed as a strategic buffer from invasion and an far more important ally and asset than any of the other purported targets of Putin’s reconstructive empire goals.
The Eastern Ukraine is also a hugely important industrial source for Russia’s own military and had remained a well intertwined component of their overall economy. So America and NATO do it again, we utilize the expertise of neo-Nazi right wing militias and thugs and overthrow an elected pro-Russian and anti-EU government, albeit a very corrupt one, and replace it with a pro-EU, American puppet government perhaps even more corrupt and dysfunctional. But this time, the Ukraine will be the beneficiary of the iron noose of the IMF and the transnational corporations who, with talons extended, have been drooling over the prospects of a still much under-exploited nation. How would the United States behave if this had all happened in Canada?
All this being said, perhaps there is, in fact, an understanding at the highest levels of government and the Sturm und Drang over the secession of Eastern Ukraine is all a Kabuki dance for the delusional masses and the movement of NATO and US troops, military maneuvers and equipment deliveries is all for show and to the benefit of the fear mongers and capitalists of both Russia and America. Folks are getting rich off all of this for sure.
As well, without enemies there can be no fear, without fear their can be no authoritarian, coercive police states, which seems to be something we have in common with Russia, perhaps even in excess. However, as such conspiracies (and anyone denying these exist has not done the research on Operation Gladio, let alone Pearl Harbor, Vietnam and perhaps, yes even 9/11) require relatively limited participation in knowledge and the truth, it is a dangerous game. This is particularly so when considering the extraordinary hubris and war making nature of the American Empire. Who surrounds whom with military bases on their doorsteps? Sorry folks, the truth hurts.
The U.S.’news’ media are so censored and controlled, so that even America’s ‘media watchdog’ organizations — mediamatters.org and fair.org on the left; and aim.org and mrc.org on the right — have hidden from the American public President Barack Obama’s Ukrainian coup in February 2014 that violently overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected President and replaced him with a Ukrainian nazi (racist-fascist) rabidly eliminationist anti-Russian, police-state regime in Kiev, which, ever since America’s coup there, has been ethnically cleansing the Ukrainian Donbass region that had voted 90% for the man, Viktor Yanukovych, whom the Obama Administration overthrew.
None of this is reported in the U.S. ‘news’ media — and America’s ‘media watchdog’ organizations hide the media’s hiding of it, though these events could bring on a nuclear war with Russia, which is America’s real target in Ukraine, right next door to Russia.
Russia under attack – Personal Liberty
While Washington works assiduously to undermine the Minsk agreement that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande achieved in order to halt the military conflict in Ukraine, Washington has sent Victoria Nuland to Armenia to organize a “color revolution” or coup there, has sent Richard Miles as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to do the same there, and has sent Pamela Spratlen as ambassador to Uzbekistan to purchase that government’s allegiance away from Russia. The result would be to break up the Collective Security Treaty Organization and present Russia and China with destabilization where they can least afford it. For details go here.
Thus, Russia faces the renewal of conflict in Ukraine simultaneously with three more Ukraine-type situations along its Asian border.
And this is only the beginning of the pressure that Washington is mounting on Russia.[gview file=”https://troutinmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Russia-under-attack.pdf”]
Chechnya Speaker Vows To Arm Mexico If U.S. Gives Weapons To Ukraine
The head of the legislature in Russia’s Chechnya region says that Russia will provide arms to Mexico if Washington supplies weapons to Ukraine.
Chechen Parliament Speaker Dukvakha Abdurakhmanov said the arms would be aimed at reigniting U.S.-Mexican disputes over “territories annexed by the United States in the American states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and part of Wyoming.”
“We will perceive arms shipments to Ukraine as a signal to respond in kind,” Abdurakhmanov said in a March 24 statement posted on the Chechen parliament’s website.
Abdurakhmanov is a close associate of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-backed strongman who rules Chechnya.
Prominent U.S. lawmakers have called on U.S. President Barack Obama to supply Ukraine with weapons…
On the heels of Ash Carter and Martin Dempsey’s testimony the U.S. should ‘absolutely consider’ arming Ukraine, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing Obama further. Congress / Ukraine
Pressure is building on President Barack Obama to arm the Ukrainians, with top House officials adding force to the push. On Thursday, eight Republicans and three top Democrats — including the ranking members of the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees — sent Obama a letter urging him “in the strongest possible terms” to quickly approve the transfer of lethal and defensive weapons systems to Ukraine.