A large part of (supposedly) the left wing appears to have lost its mind over Russia — particularly since the US election — and is now gunning for a potentially diasterous nuclear war — instead of challenging the flimsy evidence on which the “Russian threat” premise is built.
There are two main problems here: the first one is the most serious — the exaggeration of any threat from Russia is exceptionally dangerous and is being used as a way to justify the build-up of Nato forces along the Russian border, in response to this build-up Russia is also building up its forces — this poses a serious and very real danger of nuclear war, and clearly marks the re-ignition of a cold war mentality.
The risk of nuclear conflict cannot be underestimated, nor the diasterous impact it would have. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (a goup of leading experts in feilds such as nuclear war, climate change, etc) recently placed the hands of the Doomsday Clock at 2 and a half minutes to midnight — the closest it has been to midnight at any time since the early 1980’s illustrating the ever increasing threat of nuclear obilateration.
The second is that the often cited claims that Russia is some sort of threat to the West has not been given any real critical analysis by the mainstream media, commentators, and politicians. Given that it could become a disastrous nuclear war — this shows a shocking contempt for the safety of the human species.
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of all of this is that it is driven by the “left” who now apparently champion unnecessary conflict with Russia. The often cited reasons for this are:
Russia’s Annexing Of Crimea Makes Putin The Next Hitler
Russia’s annexing of Crimea is far more complicated than the story has been presented in the mainstream media — who have already decided that Putin is the next Hitler, hell bent on conquering eastern Europe and the rest of the world.
To understand the annexing we have to look at the what actually happened—the bits that the mainstream media has neglected to tell us. The annexing of Crimea was a crime — and should be treated as such — but it is important to understand it with-in the context in which it happened.
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, Gorbachev agreed to allow unified Germany to join NATO on the understanding that NATO would not move one inch to the east — meaning East Germany. Gorbachev had also proposed a Eurasia-wide security zone (with no military blocs) at the time — this was flat rejected by Former US president George HW Bush, and Former Secretary of State James Baker.
Immediately following the agreement between Gorbachev, Baker and Bush that NATO would not expand towards the east — NATO expanded and has continued to do so ever since.
The annexing of Crimea was done in response to a US backed coup which overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minster of Ukraine, Yanukovych in 2014. The reason that Yanukovych was overthrown was because he did not want to join the EU and NATO— and be forced to accept EU austerity measures. Instead, he preferred to stay aligned with Russia — so US-backed forces kicked him out. Obama admitted to this during an interview with CNN in 2015.
The often cited line that Russia invaded Crimea is simply not correct, under a bi-lateral accord with Ukraine, Russia were entitled to have 25,000 troops stationed there. It should be noted that nobody was killed during the annexing.
The annexing becomes more understandable given the fact that there is a Russian naval port of great importance in Crimea, and that the Ukraine has historically acted as a route for enemy forces to Russia such as Napolean and the Germans in World War 2.
There is no evidence that Russia has expansionist plans and this is never talked about beyond the Crimea-annexing or the far-less significant Georgia situation (a case far more flimsy than this, and once again is due to US led aggression) which given the context makes sense — even though it was probably not the right thing to do — and most like illegal.
Following the US-backed coup in Ukraine, they imposed a brutal far-right Nazi fascist leader and this led to chaos, the slaughter of civilians and on-going conflict between “pro-Russian separatists/rebels” and Kiev.
The fighting between the “pro-Russian Separatists” and the government in Kiev continues to this day, with an ever rising death toll.
It’s important to put yourself in the position of the Russians and Putin at this point, how we would react if the Russians had overthrown a democratically elected leader close to our borders? How we would we act if they continued to expand thier miltray up to our borders after aggreeing not to? These are questions and points always left out of the mainstream “debate” on the issue.
Russia Hacked Clinton’s Emails To Make Sure That Trump Would Win The Presidency & Bring Down The US From The Inside
The other reason given for the Russian hysteria is their supposed involvement in the hacking of the Democratic Party’s and John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s Former Campaign Manager and a billionaire lobbyist) emails. These leaked emails are apparently the reason that Clinton lost the US Presidential election to Trump — therefore this illustrates that the Russian’s were trying to get Trump elected and apparently the Russians favour Trump because this way they can bring down America from the inside.
If anybody stopped for just a couple of seconds to think about how backward with logic is, they would see that it make little, if any sense what so ever.
The leaked emails themselves showed that the DNC had colluded against Bernie Sanders to stop him from winning the Presidential nomination — something which they are not supposed to be doing: they are supposed to remain impartial. The Podesta emails revealed collusion between the press and the Clinton campaign. Both leaks showed the grubby inner workings of corruption within the DNC, and both leaks were therefore in the public’s interest.
Wikileaks has denied that the Russians are behind the hacking — the most likely scenario is that the leaks came from within the DNC itself — probably from a member of staff. The Podesta emails may well be the same thing, but it’s also worth remembering that Podesta wasn’t exactly careful when it came to security, he lost his phone in a taxi, and his password was “password” for his emails.
Furthermore, even if the Russian’s did hack the emails, this isn’t an uncommon practice in politics. The US has interfered with elections all over the world— including overthrowing multiple democratically elected governments and imposing brutal dictatorships. And let us not forget the fact that they openly spy, and monitor their own citizens on a daily basis.
And if the Russians did hack the emails, there is no reason to believe that this is the reason Clinton lost. The content of the emails was barely mentioned by the mainstream media — and there are many more obvious reasons for her loss, such as the fact she was the second least popular candidate of all time, second only to Trump.
The very idea that Russia hacked the emails just to help Trump win is also kind of ludicrous. We are endlessly told by the media and in particular the supposedly “left-wing” media that Putin and Trump are in love with each other, and that Putin wanted Trump to win in order to bring down the US.
There is no reason to believe this is true — if anything the opposite is likely to be true. Putin is more likely to have favoured Clinton as she was a stable candidate — cold, strategic, calculated and predictable.
Trump, on the other hand is a wildcard — and it’s hard to believe that even if they were best buddies — given the unpredictable nature of Trump you would never want to face him over Clinton in a possible conflict.
If Clinton was planning on Nuking you’d probably be able to prevent it, or predict it at least. Not so much with Trump. I highly doubt that any leader of any state would prefer Trump over Clinton for this reason.
As well as this Trump’s has appointed General “Mad Dog” Mattis to serve in his cabinet as defence secretary — Mattis has said that the threat posed by Russia is similar to that of World War 2. This is hardly the choice of somebody who is in bed with Putin and the Russians, is it?
The US has over 800 military bases across the world — by far the largest army — by far spends more than any other country on the military — and has the most advanced military capabilities in the world.
Something which is often forgotten now is that Obama actually had quite a close relationship with Putin — and this includes a certain amount of co-operation in the Syrian conflict.
Obama, however, wasn’t bashed by the “left” for this relationship, instead, the Ruplibicans opposed him for this and made similar “red scare” claims about Obama and Putin.
How would Putin even use Trump to bring down the US from the inside? Trump has said he wants to expand the US military and NATO. How does this help Putin? Again there is so simply no logic nor consistency here.
Trump was Blackmailed By Russia With A Tape Of Pissing Prostitutes Says Unverifiable Ex-MI6 Source
British and American security agencies supposedly have evidence to support the claim that Russia interfered in the election by blackmailing Trump. This evidence has so far been laughable and the document compiled by a former MI6 agent showing that Trump had been blackmailed using a sex-tape of prostitutes pissing on him, and that some of his associates had meetings with Russian officials was so ridiculous that even Buzzfeed, the website that released these documents stated clearly that they are un-verifiable.
The ex-MI6 agent that supposedly compiled this document quickly went into hiding after it was released.
Unbelievably many on the left completely bought this story! Completely unquestioning of the nonsensical, laughable nature of the document. The idea that the CIA, FBI or MI6 can be trusted to even present reliable evidence for anything should be in question from the very outset by anybody with a brain cell to rub together. It was after all the British intelligence services which compiled evidence proving that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The Chilcot Enquiry revealed that part of this “evidence” with which to take the US and UK into an illegal war (which after thousands of innocent people have been killed is still going 15 years later) was likely to have been lifted from a Nicholas Cage film, and had no basis in plausible scientific reality.
The strange thing is that the left generally fought against the Iraq war, and the ridiculous evidence for it — now, however, they accept at face value equally ridiculous evidence, just because they don’t like Trump (for some very good reasons).
Even if Putin was planning on using Trump to bring down the US, given that Trump is surrounded by rabid right-wing nationalists like Steve Bannon, and General “Mad Dog” Mattis — how likely is it that these kinds of people would — rabid American exceptionalists — would sit back and allow Putin to take over the US? This is just absolute madness, hysteria, and nonsense.
Trump’s Russian Business Interests Prove That Russia Controls Him
The last point that often gets banded about is that Trump and his cabinet have business interests in Russia — this may well be true — the President of the US shouldn’t of course, and really should be impeached if this is the case. However, this doesn’t mean that Trump is the only one — or his cabinet for that matter to have business interests in Russia or vice versa.
The UK has a lot of ‘investment’ from Russian billionaires in property — perhaps this influences our government’s policy-making towards both Russia and billionaires? The UK, also gets much of its energy from Russian sellers,, but nobody is questioning this, and the possible influence this could have on the UK’s foreign policy with regards to Russia.
None of this is to say that Putin is anything other than a brutal dictator, or that Trump is anything other than an openly biggoted lunatic Republican. But we have to stick to the facts of the matter rather than just making stuff up, and exaggerating the threats posed. The reason that the media, and the majority of politicians are ramping up the supposed threat from Russia, is to manufacture consent for a war with Russia—an unnecessary one, that given the nuclear capabilities on both sides could be a complete disaster for the human species.
The fact that this potential goes unchallenged, and even worse championed by people on the left is kind of shocking.
It used to be neo-cons and the warmongering Red Tories, like Blair, and of course the Tories themselves that promoted war at all costs to sanity, logic or reason.
Now though the “left” is just as bad, and fails to see reality, fails to see the facts.
The actual left though—such as Corbyn is calling for a de-escalation with Russia as this is the only path to peace, and indeed the only route to sanity. As a response to this, quite predictably Corbyn was accused by a senior Tory MP of “collaborating with Russia” and bashed by him for not supporting NATO. Intensely scarey language when you consider what is at stake.
As is so often with Corbyn — although far from perfect — atleast there is somebody who is speaking some form of sense in power. While the rest of the world it seems looks on and ache for an unnececery nuclear war, that could obilterate us all.
There is nothing invertible about nuclear war with Russia, and the left should be doing all it can to prevent it. Trump’s supposed close relationship with Putin may actually be some sort of silver lining around his generally regressive and repulsive leadership.
De-escalation of forces and tension between the west and Russia should really welcomed in any form at the moment, unless Russia really is diplaying aggressive force.
Unless we see genuine eveidence of a seriuos Russian threat we should all welcome steps towards de-escaltion, even if they come from people we other wise oppose.