“Russiagate” has become more than just a catchy title for alleged interference in the 2016 elections.
Russiagate has begun driving bipartisan foreign policy with devastating impacts for people living in the former Soviet states as well as dangerous implications for organized life everywhere.
With the purchase of a few hundred Facebook ads by a Russian company, the majority of Americans may believe Trump has done something unethical or downright illegal in dealing with Russia and Putin, according to an NPR poll of 1,205 Americans in June 2018.
This animosity toward Russia has brought about a ceaseless campaign of economic sanctions, aggressive PR and diplomatic animosity. The motivation behind these violent tactics is that Russia will buckle under pressure and eventually apologize to the West for being an anarchic force of chaos against our enlightened society of modernity.
Unfortunately, for American policymakers and warmongers, there is no historical precedent for the idea that the Russian people will cave under pressure. On the contrary, as sanctions increase hardships for the average Russian by raising the price of basic necessities like food and heating oil, their sense of patriotism and solidarity increases also.
To illustrate this point, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev asserts, in an interview with BBC in December 2016 that, “Special instructions have been given to the western press, and I’m sure to you too, to discredit Putin and get rid of him. As a result, 86 percent of Russians support Putin. And soon it will be 120 percent.”
As the west continues its attempts to alienate Russia from the global community, the west further develops an atmosphere of hostility that increases rthe isk for nuclear conflict. In other words: annihilation.
It is important to remember what ends our intelligence communities and the government which administers these intelligence communities ought to serve. These institutions ought to “promote the general Welfare … of ourselves and our posterity.”
The establishment media is on a campaign to criminalize diplomacy by labeling anyone with Russian contacts a spy or a kremlin puppet. How can we continue on a path of disarmament during a time when speaking with Russian officials is taboo? A time when two-thirds of all Russian embassies in America have been closed on trumped up charges?
When we close long established channels of communication, channels that were created to mitigate the risk of nuclear war between the world’s two largest nuclear power, we are putting the world’s population at risk.
Events driven media and identity driven politics have become the modus operandi for our society. Absent are discussions of real policies that deal with our survival as a species, let alone “promote the general welfare.”
As politicians and media pundits make comparisons between 9/11 and Russiagate, the very real threats of nuclear war and climate change slide ever further into the margins of public discussion. The Russiagate story is very interesting and quite good for ratings, but a valuable question to ask might be, are media ratings worth increasing the risk of nuclear war?
Daniel Mashrick can be reached at [email protected]
peter mcloughlin
This article illustrates excellently the dangerous process that leads nations to war. This is very much event in the drift towards conflict between the West and Russia. What Daniel Mashrick is warning about is well founded. This process will end in nuclear holocaust. The pattern of history is clear. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict throughout history – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics - everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above concepts, that is the cause of war. It is the one thing we will destroy ourselves for, as well as everyone else. When core interests are threatened and existential threat looms nations go to war. There can be no compromise on these. As a result every civilization/nation eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. This applies as much today as any other time in history. Deterrence doctrine, made for the 20th century Cold War for which it arguably worked, is irrelevant in the 21st and will ultimately fail us. Deterrence can no longer prevent the scenarios where Mutual Assured Destruction will be resorted to. We will soon face the scenario that (unlike the Cuban missile crisis) one protagonist will not be able to step back from the brink, blindly stumbling into a situation they cannot de-escalate. All that is left is Deterrence’s fall-back position – annihilation. Leaders and decision-makers delude themselves, thinking they can avoid their fate – they can’t. If survival is threatened, there is no alternative to war, however destructive. http://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/