Posts
I normally cast aside
explanations of events based on the psychology of the actors, but this has been
hard to do in recent months. How else, apart from signs of paranoia, can one
explain the never-ending stories in the mainstream media about the Russian
menace?
A constant tirade against Russia
emanates from television and radio channels, and from all the ‘quality’
newspapers and reporters. (See this Youtube video of Putin explaining that the
BBC’s John Simpson has no ‘common sense’). Only the topic changes with the
times. One early focus was Russia’s intervention in Crimea/Ukraine, which upset
US and European strategy. The next was how Russia’s support for Assad in Syria
unravelled and sidelined disastrous western policy. One of the latest is the
election of Trump, billionaire-in-chief of the US hegemon. A shocked US
political elite can only put down Trump’s election to the nefarious Russkies,
not to domestic political reaction. Right on cue, a British ex-MI6 agent
provided a dossier of ‘evidence’ to ‘demonstrate’ that Putin was in a position
to blackmail Trump! If that were not bad enough to show how the commies were
undermining western liberal democracy, new stories are about Russian support
for Marine Le Pen’s Front National in France and other rightwing parties in
Europe.
The anti-Russia syndrome
reflects two things outside the realm of psychosis. Firstly, it is a sign of
big power frustration with a permanent member of the UN Security Council that
can veto US-led UN resolutions and which can also back up its policies with
military firepower. Secondly, the chronic phase of the crisis persists, and
this is straining the political infrastructure, as most clearly seen with the
Brexit and Trump votes. ‘Anti-communism’ is one of the few comfort blankets
that the western powers can cling on to in these troubling times and pretend
that they are all still in the same gang.
Take the UK government, for
example. No longer invited to any EU soirées, the UK has to grandstand at NATO.
The UK Ministry of Defence today declared that one of its key objectives for
this week’s NATO summit in Brussels was
“to ensure the Alliance continues to make progress on taking
forward the ambitious agenda agreed at Warsaw, in particular on modern defence
and deterrence towards Russia. On that front (literally), the enhanced forward
presence of NATO battlegroups is deploying this Spring to the Baltic States and
Poland, with the UK proud to be leading the formation in Estonia, one of our
most effective Allies in the Helmand campaign.”
The anti-Russian strategy has
been a hallmark of British imperialism ever since the October revolution of
1917, and it has helped shape, or has been used in, almost all of its other
policies. From the late 1930s/early 1940s, Britain focused upon splitting India
into two countries, so as to make the new Pakistan a bulwark against any
Russian incursion into its interests in the Indian subcontinent and the Persian
Gulf. Britain also feared Soviet involvement to stymie its attempts to
re-establish its colonial empire (and those of other powers) in the late 1940s.
Britain went out of its way to support Moslem fundamentalism in the Middle East
and North Africa as a counter-weight to local demands for freedom from foreign
domination, usually put forward by secular nationalists, and it justified this
by using the fear of ‘communist subversion’, even when that was completely
unfounded. Similarly, Britain used the Soviet threat as a way to get the
Americans to back its policies, as with the US involvement in the 1953 coup
that overthrew Mossadegh in Iran. There were many other such initiatives, as
documented in Stephen Dorrill’s MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations.
Russia has completely
embarrassed British and American political strategy at a time when Britain
wants to hold on to its role as facilitator for that strategy in European and
beyond. Now, post-Brexit, the Brits are high and dry, but Theresa May hopes to
continue to hold hands with Donald Trump over NATO.
