Without much of a counter, Leonid Bershidsky’s Johnson’s Russia List promoted Bloomberg article of July 13, presents the image of Russia as a US adversary, thereby (essentially) excusing Kiev regime-Democratic National Committee (DNC) collusion against Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential election – unlike the not as well substantiated claim of a Donald Trump-Russian government cooperation against Hillary Clinton in the same period.
Russia and the US aren’t at war with each other and the Kiev regime isn’t formally allied with the US in the same manner as NATO member countries. It’s extremely shortsighted to readily accept Kiev regime anti-Russian propaganda, designed to seek a greater deterioration of US-Russian relations – with the idea of Ukraine as a valuable strategic bulwark against Russia.
The obsessive Russia bashing downplays the Kiev regime’s problematical kleptocracy, in territory where a noticeable nationalist violence has suppressed pro-Russian perspectives. With this in mind, it’s wrongheaded to readily oppose an important global player as Russia, by (pretty much) exclusively highlighting Russian wrongs (real and hyped), while downplaying Kiev regime negatives.
Some of the Kiev regime spin is outlandishly bogus, as evidenced by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s lie that Jews in Crimea haven’t been able to observe their faith since Crimea’s reunification with Russia. Relative to the stretched out MSNBC-CNN attempt to find a Trump-Russia collusion, one can reasonably surmise a possible DNC-Kiev regime false flag effort at pinning a Russian government hack of the DNC. There’re valid reasons to second guess the claimed Russian government hack of the DNC, that note the DNC utilized CrowdStrike cybersecurity source and its ties to the anti-Russian leaning/pro-Kiev regime Atlantic Council.
As is true with some other leading US conservatives, the pro-Trump Fox News host Sean Hannity, hasn’t been as gung ho as the US president in seeking an improved US-Russian relationship. This observation is in line with the overall US mass media limits in uncovering the faulty evidence concerning Trump and Russia. Unfairly characterizing Trump and his US establishment supporters can lead to a high profile backlash, resulting in the kind of retraction that CNN gave to Anthony Scaramucci. On the other hand, faulty comments against mainstream Russians and others who’re critical of the anti-Russian biases can’t expect the same kind of a US mass media follow-up.
Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson’s exchanges was his encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson’s challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and should be said in reply to Peter’s comments.
Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn’t made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In one of his more accurate moments, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia’s war against ISIS. You’ve to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.
Peters’ characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to those killed by US and Israeli military actions.
Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills journalists. There’re numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early 1970’s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn’t blamed for the pro-Sanders person who attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.
Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who’re overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.
During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don’t seem less legit than the American revolutionaries.
Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn’t seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia.
Putin isn’t anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin’s obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn’t by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.
Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton’s neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.
Enjoy the article?
Did you find this article informative? Please consider contributing to Eurasia Review, as we are truly independent and do not receive financial support from any institution, corporation or organization.