Eric Zuesse – The Basic Difference between Today’s ‘The West’ and Today’s Russia

26 februari 2024Businessplan, Home, Interview, Locatie, Media, Portretten, Ridderboek, Zuesse0

The Basic Difference between Today’s ‘The West’ and Today’s Russia

On 28 May 2014, US President Barack Obama presented the current US and allied view. He addressed America’s future military leaders, at West Point, by telling them,

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. (…) Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. (…) It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world.

He was telling the military that America’s economic competition, against the BRICS nations, is a key matter for America’s military, and not Only for America’s private corporations, that US taxpayers fund America’s military at least partially in order to impose the wills and extend the wealth of the stockholders in America’s corporations abroad, and that the countries against which America is in economic competition are “Dispensable” but America “Is and Remains the One Indispensable Nation.” This, supposedly, also authorizes America’s weapons and troops to fight against countries whose “Governments Seek A Greater Say in Global Forums.” In other words, Stop the growing economies from growing faster than America’s. There is another name for the American Government’s supremacist ideology. This term is “Fascism.”

The reality, not talked about in public, since America isn’t a democracy, is that the United States Government propagandizes against foreign governments and then perpetrates coups and or military invasions against them, in order to impose the US Empire’s dictatorial stooges, and then to crush whatever democracy had existed there. This US fascism didn’t happen only in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and Chile in 1973, but it happens also today, long after the ‘Anti Communist’ Excuse for it had ended in 1991.

It’s not only the right wing think tanks, such as the Hudson Institute and the Rand Corporation, that urge America to invade countries that pose no threat against the US, but also liberal think tanks, such as the Open Society Foundation and the Brookings Institution, that urge fire bombing of cities and even ethnic cleansing in order to defeat foreign leaders whom the American aristocracy want to overthrow.

Though there is space here to mention just a few examples of these “Liberal” psychopaths, these will be representative ones.

In 2002, the Brookings Institution’s Kenneth Pollack came forth with his book, The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq. As the Council on Foreign Relations promoted it.

“This highly influential book, written as the Bush administration turned its sights on Saddam Hussein’s regime, takes the reader back to the pre war days of uncertainty about Saddam’s weapons and his ties to major terrorist organizations, outlining a powerful case for a US invasion of Iraq. Senior Fellow Kenneth Pollack argues that to prevent Saddam from acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States has little choice [but] to topple the regime, eradicate its weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild the country as a prosperous and stable society.”

Upon the book’s publication, the CFR issued a press release about it, saying.

“Building on his acclaimed March 2002 Foreign Affairs article, ‘Next Stop Baghdad?’, Pollack lays out five options available to the United States, bolstering containment, depending on a formal deterrence policy, mounting a covert action campaign, relying on airpower and the Iraqi opposition, and launching a full scale invasion, and argues that none of the first four are realistic anymore. Therefore, only a full scale invasion involving several hundred thousand American soldiers can deal with the growing threat.”

Pollack subsequently blamed the Bush Administration for having misled him, and, by May of 2003, after the March 19th invasion, he was saying that this book of his, which argued for the urgency of invading Iraq in order to block Saddam Hussein’s supposed nuclear bomb program, was concerned instead only about “A Much More Distant Threat. And the Real Threat that I Felt from Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Program was the Potential for Iraq to Eventually Develop Nuclear Weapons.” When the interviewer asked how shaky was the evidence on the basis of which Pollack had urged an immediate invasion, Pollack answered, “You’re Now Getting beyond my Area of Expertise.”

Was he fired, for his dangerous and unfounded ‘Expert‘ presentation of his suspicions as if they were instead facts? No, he was still with Brookings until he switched to the American Enterprise Institute and is still being treated by the Establishment and its ‘News’ media as if he were a respectable person and a foreign policy ‘Expert‘, no mere lethal propagandist for America’s voracious aristocracy.

In March 2012, Pollack co authored along with two other similar Brookings ‘experts’, a 16 page “Middle East Memo”, titled “Saving Syria, Assessing Options for Regime Change”.

Again, there were “Five Options Available to the United States”, and, yet again, the final one was invasion, about which he had this to say, this time around,

“There are at least four pieces of ‘Good News’ when it comes to contemplating an American led invasion of Syria. First, as in Iraq, the initial invasion is likely to be easy. In fact, it would probably be even easier than it was in Iraq because the Syrian military is smaller, weaker, and less experienced than was the Iraqi military, and it is already tied down fighting an internal opposition. Second, the United States would probably do a better job of handling the essential post war reconstruction because it has learned from the many mistakes it made in Iraq. What’s more, after Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has a large cadre of personnel with the skills needed to handle the challenges of reconstruction.”

How heartwarming! Like knife in your heart warming, for anyone stupid enough to think that outfits such as Brookings, and AEI, are anything better than the lowest level of fake gold leafed scum that get invited onto MainStream Media as “Experts” to mis ’Inform’ voters.

And then there was the time when the Brookings Institution’s team of ‘Experts’ said that US President Obama needed to follow up his successful coup in Ukraine by intensifying the ethnic cleansing program against Ukraine’s former Donbass region, which was refusing to submit to the US installed regime.

And this gets us now to George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, and its associated ‘Philanthropies’, such as the International Renaissance Foundation, or “Fund”, which, along with the US Government and The Netherlands Government, had financed the creation of the leading TV station for the “Maidan” demonstrations that provided cover for the CIA’s coup. It was called Hromadske TV, and here was one of its ‘Experts’ talking about what needed to be done to the people in the rebelling Donbass region,

“Donbass, in general, is not simply a region in a very depressed condition, it has got a whole number of problems, the biggest of which is that it is severely overpopulated with people nobody has any use for. Trust me I know perfectly well what I am saying. If we take, for example, just the Donetsk Oblast, there are approximately 4 Million inhabitants, at least 1.5 Million of which are superfluous. That’s what I mean, we don’t need to [try to] ‘Understand’ Donbass, we need to understand Ukrainian national interests. Donbass must be exploited as a resource, which it is.”

In other words, Kill the Residents There, keep the land and its “Resources.”

That example is not entirely typical, but the chief private financier behind it was urging the US and EU to pump an additional $ 20 – 50 Billion into completing that job of ethnic cleansing, and This was None Other than George Soros Him Self, Whose ‘Charities’ made him the Biggest Lifetime Donor to America’s Democratic Party. And, after all, he too is considered to be ‘Respectable’.

Whereas in domestic affairs, America’s aristocracy is far from united, that aristocracy displays a stunning unanimity in regards to foreign affairs, they want to conquer the world. As US President Barack Obama constantly said, “The United States is and remains the One Indispensable Nation.” All others are ‘Dispensable’. His Republican opponents in 2008 and 2012, John McCain and Mitt Romney, couldn’t have said it any better. In international affairs, they all served the same masters, America’s billionaires, who profit enormously from these invasions. And the American public tolerate that agenda, conquest, because the billionaires funded ‘Experts’ and the ‘News’ media serve those same masters, the aristocracy. Regarding the CIA, ‘Defense’ Department, State Department, et cetera, it’s the ‘Respectable’ position to advocate. After all. other countries are ‘Dispensable’. So, they might as well be consumed, not simply wasted. Isn’t that what they’re there for? To serve “the One Indispensable Nation”?

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and the Russian people explicitly reject and condemn that ideology. To them it sounds and Is too much like was Adolf Hitler’s ideology was.

On 19 September 2013, at the Valdai International Discussion Club, Putin explicitly rejected it when he said “We believe that Every Country, Every Nation is Not Exceptional, but Unique, Original and Benefits from Equal Rights, including the Right to Independently Choose their Own Development Path.”

He said that within a broader context of stating Russian traditions, and so he presented this 100% progressive viewpoint, which is rejected both by America’s liberals and by America’s conservatives, and here that statement by him is, with emphases, boldface, that I have added to it.

This year the [Valdai] Club has brought together an unprecedented list of participants, more than 200 Russian and foreign politicians, public and spiritual leaders, philosophers and cultural figures, people with very different, original and sometimes opposing views.

You have already been conferring here for a few days now, and I‘ll try not to bore you unduly. But nevertheless, I will allow myself to state my views on subjects that you have touched on during these discussions in one way or another. I am not only thinking about analysing Russian historical, cultural, and governance experiences. First and foremost, I am thinking of general debates, conversations about the future, strategies, and values, about the values underpinning our country’s development, how global processes will affect our national identity, what kind of twenty first century world we want to see, and what Russia, our country, can contribute to this world together with its partners.

Today we need new strategies to preserve our identity in a rapidly changing world, a world that has become more open, transparent and interdependent. This fact confronts virtually all countries and all peoples in one form or another, Russian, European, Chinese and American, the societies of virtually all countries. And naturally, including here in Valdai, we strive to better understand how our partners are attempting to meet this challenge, because we are meeting here with experts on Russia. But we proceed from the fact that our guests will state their views on the interaction and relationship between Russia and the countries that you represent.

For us, and I am talking about Russians and Russia, questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre 1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from reality, as are supporters of an extreme, Western style liberalism.

It is evident that it is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural and national self determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor we will succeed in global competitions. And today we see a new round of such competitions. Today their main focuses are economic technological and ideological informational. Military political problems and general conditions are worsening. The world is becoming more rigid, and sometimes forgoes not merely international law, but also basic decency.

Every country has to have military, technological and economic strength, but nevertheless the main thing that will determine success is the quality of citizens, the quality of society, their intellectual, spiritual and moral strength. After all, in the end economic growth, prosperity and geopolitical influence are all derived from societal conditions. They depend on whether the citizens of a given country consider themselves a nation, to what extent they identify with their own history, values and traditions, and whether they are united by common goals and responsibilities. In this sense, the question of finding and strengthening national identity really is fundamental for Russia.

Meanwhile, today Russia’s national identity is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times. The result was a devastating blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes, we were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face. After all, the question of responsibility for oneself, before society and the law, is something fundamental for both legal and everyday life.

After 1991 there was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology, would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes, virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi official ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi colonial element of the elite, those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.

Practice has shown that a new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character. Incidentally, such approaches have often failed in other nations too. The time when ready made life style models could be installed in foreign states like computer programmes has passed.

We also understand that identity and a national idea cannot be imposed from above, cannot be established on an ideological monopoly. Such a construction is very unstable and vulnerable, we know this from personal experience. It has no future in the modern world. We need historical creativity, a synthesis of the best national practices and ideas, an understanding of our cultural, spiritual and political traditions from different points of view, and to understand that [national identity] is not a rigid thing that will last forever, but rather a living organism. Only then will our identity be based on a solid foundation, be directed towards the future and not the past. This is the main argument demonstrating that a development ideology must be discussed by people who hold different views, and have different opinions about how and what to do to solve given problems.

All of us, so called Neo Slavophiles and Neo Westernisers, statists and so called liberals, all of society must work together to create common development goals. We need to break the habit of only listening to like minded people, angrily, and even with hatred, rejecting any other point of view from the outset. You can’t flip or even kick the country’s future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything, or gloomy pessimism.

This means that liberals have to learn to talk with representatives of the left wing and, conversely, that nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a multi ethnic and multi confessional country from its very inception. Nationalists must remember that by calling into question our multi ethnic character, and exploiting the issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.

Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic. Of course I mean patriotism in the purest sense of the word.

Too often in our nation’s history, instead of opposition to the government we have been faced with opponents of Russia itself. I have already mentioned this, [Aleksandr] Pushkin also talked about it. And we know how it ended, with the demolition of the [Russian] state as such. There is virtually no Russian family that completely escaped the troubles of the past century. Questions about how to assess certain historical events still divide our country and society.

We need to heal these wounds, and repair the tissues of our historical fabric. We can no longer engage in self-deception, striking out unsightly or ideologically uncomfortable pages of our history, breaking links between generations, rushing to extremes, creating or debunking idols. It’s time to stop taking note only of the bad in our history, and berating ourselves more than even our opponents would do. (Self-criticism is necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive.)

We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward.

Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities, national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different, their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

What else but the loss of the ability to self reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a uni polar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a uni polar, standardised world does not require sovereign states, it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God given diversity of the world.

Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique, original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path.

This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia’s role in global politics. Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.

I want to remind you that the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the agreements made at Yalta in 1945, taken with Russia’s very active participation, secured a lasting peace. Russia’s strength, the strength of a winning nation at those critical junctures, manifested itself as generosity and justice. And let us remember [the Treaty of] Versailles, concluded without Russia’s participation. Many experts, and I absolutely agree with them, believe that Versailles laid the foundation for the Second World War because the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to the German people: it imposed restrictions with which they could not cope, and the course of the next century became clear.

There is one more fundamental aspect to which I want to draw your attention. In Europe and some other countries so called multic ulturalism is in many respects a transplanted, artificial model that is now being questioned, for understandable reasons. This is because it is based on paying for the colonial past. It is no accident that today European politicians and public figures are increasingly talking about the failures of multi culturalism, and that they are not able to integrate foreign languages or foreign cultural elements into their societies.

Over the past centuries in Russia, which some have tried to label as the ”Prison of Nations“, not even the smallest ethnic group has disappeared. And they have retained not only their internal autonomy and cultural identity, but also their historical space. You know, I was interested to learn, I did not even know this, that in Soviet times [authorities] paid such careful attention to this that virtually every small ethnic group had its own print publication, support for its language, and for its national literature. We should bring back and take on board much of what has been done in this respect.

Along with this the different cultures in Russia have the unique experience of mutual influence, mutual enrichment and mutual respect. This multi culturalism and multi ethnicity lives in our historical consciousness, in our spirit and in our historical make up. Our state was built in the course of a millennium on this organic model.

Russia, as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it, has always evolved in “Blossoming Complexity“ as a state civilisation, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely the state civilisation model that has shaped our state polity. It has always sought to flexibly accommodate the ethnic and religious specificity of particular territories, ensuring diversity in unity.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of Russia’s identity, its historical heritage and the present day lives of its citizens. The main task of the state, as enshrined in the Constitution, is to ensure equal rights for members of traditional religions and atheists, and the right to freedom of conscience for all citizens.

However, it is clearly impossible to identify one self only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation with a multi ethnic population. In order to maintain the nation’s unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.

There are broad discussions on how the ideology of national development will be structured politically and conceptually, including with your participation, colleagues. But I deeply believe that individuals’ personal, moral, intellectual and physical development must remain at the heart of our philosophy. Back at the start of the 1990‘s, [Aleksandr] Solzhenitsyn stated that the nation’s main goal should be to preserve the population after a very difficult 20th century. Today, we must admit that we have not yet fully overcome the negative demographic trends, although we have veered away from a dangerous decline in the national potential.

Unfortunately, throughout our nation’s history, little value was given at times to individual human lives. Too often, people were seen simply as a means, rather than a goal and a mission for development. We no longer have that right and we cannot throw millions of human lives into the fire for the sake of development. We must treasure every individual. Russia’s main strength in this and future centuries will lie in its educated, creative, physically and spiritually healthy people, rather than natural resources.

The role of education is all the more important because in order to educate an individual, a patriot, we must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature. They must serve as the foundation for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness and their basis for understanding the national idea. Here, a great deal depends on the teaching community, which has been and remains a highly important guardian of nationwide values, ideas and philosophies. This community speaks the same language, the language of science, knowledge and education, despite the fact that it is spread out over an enormous territory, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. In this way, the community of teachers, the educational community over all, in the broad sense of the word, binds the nation together. Supporting this community is one of the most important steps on the path toward a strong, flourishing Russia.

I want to stress again that without focussing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs, freely cooperating with equals.

Local governments and self regulated citizens’ organisations serve as the best school for civic consciousness. Of course, I’m referring to non profits. Incidentally, one of the best Russian political traditions, the country council tradition, was also built on the principles of local government. A true civil society and a true, nationally focused political elite, including the opposition with its own ideology, values and standards for good and evil, their own, rather than those dictated by the media or from abroad, can only grow through effective self governing mechanisms. The government is prepared to trust self regulating and self governing associations, but we must know whom we are trusting. This is absolutely normal global practice, which is precisely why we have passed new legislation to increase the transparency of non governmental organisations.

Speaking of any kind of reforms, it is important to bear in mind that there is more to our nation than just Moscow and St Petersburg. In developing Russian federalism, we must rely on our own historical experience, using flexible and diverse models. The Russian model of federalism has a great deal of potential built into it. It is imperative that we learn to use it competently, not forgetting its most important aspect, the development of the regions and their independence should create equal opportunities for all of our nation’s citizens, regardless of where they live, to eliminate inequalities in the economic and social development of Russia’s territory, thereby strengthening the nation’s unity. Ultimately, this is a huge challenge because these territories’ development has been very unbalanced over the course of decades and even centuries.

I would like to touch on another topic. The 21st century promises to become the century of major changes, the era of the formation of major geopolitical zones, as well as financial and economic, cultural, civilisational, and military and political areas. That is why integrating with our neighbours is our absolute priority. The future Eurasian Economic Union, which we have declared and which we have discussed extensively as of late, is not just a collection of mutually beneficial agreements. The Eurasian Union is a project for maintaining the identity of nations in the historical Eurasian space in a new century and in a new world. Eurasian integration is a chance for the entire post Soviet space to become an independent centre for global development, rather than remaining on the outskirts of Europe and Asia.

I want to stress that Eurasian integration will also be built on the principle of diversity. This is a union where everyone maintains their identity, their distinctive character and their political independence. Together with our partners, we will gradually implement this project, step by step. We expect that it will become our common input into maintaining diversity and stable global development.

Colleagues, the years after 1991 are often referred to as the post Soviet era. We have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to itself, to its own history, just as it did at other points in its history. After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of The East and The West, we must and will move forward.

He was comprehensively repudiating the master slave, supremacist, traditions that, ever since 25 July 1945, have dominated, like had been the case in the prior English, German, French, Roman, and other Empires, which the post WWII US Government has striven to culminate by creating the world’s first global empire, and now such supremacism is virtually monopolizing not only within the United States but throughout its Empire, in All of its colonies or ‘Allies’, to which it currently aims to add both Russia and China.

So, even after the end of communism in Russia, a very big ideological difference exists between Today’s America and Today’s Russia. But perhaps the biggest of those differences is that while America and its ‘Allies’ insist upon conquest, regime change, against Russia, to overthrow and replace Russia’s Government, Russia isn’t, at all, trying to overthrow and replace America’s Government, but instead demands ONLY that Ukraine, which is merely 317 miles away from Russia’s Central Command in Moscow, be prohibited from joining America’s anti Russian military alliance, NATO. And, so, that is the biggest Single difference between Russia and the US Empire. Russia refuses to become swallowed up by the US, or any other, Empire.

¶

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL, Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to US and allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘News’ media but the social ‘Sciences’, duping the public.
Eric Zuesse blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/.

https://theduran.com/the-basic-difference-between-todays-the-west-and-todays-russia/

The Basic Difference between Today’s ‘The West’ and Today’s Russia

¶

Dit delen:

Plaats een reactie Reactie annuleren