You can’t put a new Yeltsin in Russia and let him rob a country!
It is believed that Mr. Trump wants to "come to an agreement" with the Russians. This strategy would be completely consistent with its geopolitical plan: the war against Islamic terrorism. If we don’t cooperate with Russia, at least to neutralize existing tensions, President Trump is allegedly in this position. True, the new cold war prevents him from carrying out plans.
The site "The Real News Network" published an interview that presenter Paul Jay took from a publicist living in Moscow - Jeffrey Tayler. The topic of the interview: “Is Russia the“ enemy ”of the United States?” (Quotes in the original.) The interviewer and interviewee undertook to challenge the thesis of Washington politicians that the Russians are “enemies of the American people.”
The site indicates that Jeffrey Tyler is an editor at The Atlantic, the author of seven books, a man who has traveled all over Russia as a correspondent and as a publicist collecting material for future books. Three of these books concern Russia. In Moscow, the journalist lives with 1993 year.
As Paul Jay noted at the beginning of the interview, the hype that happened in the US because of the “Komi case”, the “Russia case” and everything else has one fundamental theme: “Russia is America’s opponent”. Americans hear the word "opponent" again and again. From each TV rushes this statement. Americans are told that Russia is opposed to America for two reasons. First: Russia is ruled by a tyrant, authoritarian Putin. The second reason is international: Putin supports Assad in Syria. In addition, Putin is an opponent of the United States in Ukraine. Well, and so on.
So why all the same Russia is designated as the opponent of the USA? After all, if even what they say about Putin (autocracy, does not allow free elections, suppresses journalists, etc.) is true (and this is not necessarily so), then when something like that prevented the United States from calling someone an ally and a friend, starting with the Saudis or Latin American dictators? The presenter believes that many of them suppressed human rights more seriously than Putin did in Russia.
According to Geoffrey Teyler, “part of the description of the situation” refers to “Russia's unfortunate innate tendency to somehow seek autocracy.” Russians "usually respect a strong ruler." The expert points to kings and Soviet general secretaries. Nevertheless, Putin is inappropriate to compare with Stalin. There is enough freedom on the Internet. There is less freedom of speech on the radio. There is no free public criticism of Putin. This is despite the fact that his popularity rating remains unusually high - more than 80%. The journalist believes that Putin is really popular in Russia. Yes, there are problems: corruption and others, but the general sense is that Putin, especially after the Crimea, has become extremely popular.
Further, the expert notes that "the average Russian is someone like a geopolitical analyst." Americans are a different matter; such interests are usually alien to them. In addition, the Russians “are very proud of their history, In particular, the victory over Hitler. They talk about repeated invasions from the West and the victories of Russia. “This idea of Russia as a country is something like that ... This idea of a country that stretches across 11 time zones is actually quite strong. This is the central unifying element in Russia, the central unifying political element. He always focused on one person, ”the interviewee believes. And even Boris Yeltsin suddenly discovered that he needed to basically join the Russian tradition and crush the opposition: he had to "blow up his own parliament to crush the threat in 1993 year."
The expansion of NATO began under President Clinton, reminds the journalist, and after all, George Bush had the promise of James Baker about NATO’s non-expansion after the reunification of Germany. This is the “national wound of the Yeltsin years,” which allowed Putin to rise. The Yeltsin years were generally the years of "famine, mass demonstrations," as well as "freedoms that the Russians did not know before." After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the standard of living "fell extremely." Under Putin in the early years, the standard of living “rose very quickly and high” due to high oil prices. People associate stability in general with Putin and hope that stability will remain with him. That is one of the reasons Putin’s popularity.
Paul J noted that in the United States there is a lot of hypocrisy about human rights issues, about free and fair elections. However, in the Russian elections democracy is even less. Is it true?
Jeffrey Tyler replies: “Yes. People understand this. ” The “Russian approach” limits candidates. In the next election there will be four or five. And all of them will essentially be "approved by the state."
Paul Jay does not consider Russia a geopolitical rival. Russians have “many nuclear bombs,” so a “theoretical existential threat” exists. Yes, there are differences in Syria and Ukraine. There is a difference in rivalry for influence and power in general. But Russia is not a geopolitical rival. Russia is far from the economic level of China. Here, China is definitely a "real competitor to the United States." So what is this Russia for the United States?
Jeffrey Tyler says: “I think Americans are looking for an enemy in Russia" by default. " This is what the military-industrial complex was created for. Eisenhower warned about this when he left the White House, and Kennedy could not cope with it. ” Since then, anti-Russian sentiments have only grown. Carriers do not need the United States to fight the "IG" (prohibited in the Russian Federation) or other terrorist threats. All this is necessary for the potential confrontation of Russia.
Paul Jay: “Maybe I think naively, but I think that Russia, for example, is somehow going to - what? Capture Europe, end American influence in Europe? .. ”Very interesting materials were on WikiLeaks at the time, which explain why the war in Libya happened. In Rome, Gazprom used the Italian oil company. WikiLeaks, who acquired the diplomatic information, reported that Gazprom was using Italians as an intermediary for "creating an energy loop around Europe." And here Russia really appears as a truly aggressive state.
Jeffrey Tyler replies: “As I recall, when the decision was made to intervene in Libya, Hillary Clinton recommended Obama to create a fly-by zone for the United States, if you remember, she called it immediately after meeting with the leaders of the oil industry. It is possible that the flow of information, which was not known in 2011, actually ... forced her to declare that we need to get there [to Libya] and thwart any Russian plans to expand to Libya. ”
Paul Jay thinks it's paradoxical, because “in the end,” Obama “agreed with the Russians” and actually told them: “If you help us get rid of Gaddafi, you can keep your business.” That is exactly what happened: “The Russians really changed their position and said:“ It’s time for Gaddafi to leave. ” “In the end,” says Jay, “Gazprom, if I understand this correctly, secured this deal and really got access to a lot of Libyan oil and gas.”
Jeffrey Tailer adds: “Well, in fact, Putin was pulling the strings at that time ...”
Paul Jay: “Yes, that's exactly what I intended. Yes".
At the same time, Jeffrey Tailer remarks: “That's right. Putin did not approve of the overthrow of Gaddafi and was dissatisfied with his president at the time ”[Medvedev]. Strange! After all, now Putin seeks to maintain public order, as, for example, in Syria with Assad, and objects to the chaos that is happening in Libya.
Paul Jay notes here that the American rich have been “investing in Russophobia for decades to justify the production weapons". In addition, "they would like to return to the good old days." These are the times of Yeltsin, when chaos is created, when there is no strong centralized state, when Western oligarchs have access to the wealth of Russia, especially oil. Destabilization of Russia is profitable for them. They do not want to deal with a state that can stand up to them.
With this, Tyler agrees: “Yes. I think it is true. Russia does not need guarantees of US security, such as the Saudis and the countries of the Persian Gulf. Russia is a competitor, and it is a country that will not succumb to pressure from the United States. I think this in its essence already causes hostility, at least, among high-ranking officials of the United States. ” As long as Russia has a nuclear arsenal and while it controls its own territory, there is apparently no way to force it to submit to the deals that the United States imposed on Russia during Yeltsin’s time.
Paul Jay admits that, “in addition to the usual partisan politics,” Trump is ready to lead an “energy game” and at the same time cooperate with Russia. Perhaps this fits into his geopolitical strategy, which proclaims a “global war” against Islamic terrorism. Trump could at least “neutralize or ease tensions” with Russia. Of course, Russia wants to participate in the fight against IG. In fact, she is even more willing to wage a war against terrorism than the Americans, Jay said. There are a lot of similarities with the interests that Trump previously identified. On the other hand, for the American elite, it seems, more important is the preservation of the Cold War or something similar that would contribute to the destabilization of Russia.
Jeffrey Tyler believes that this kind of elite strategy is erroneous "for several reasons." First, when the United States and Russia collaborated after the collapse of the USSR, “a lot of goodwill from the Russians” was shown. Secondly, the late expansion of NATO in the 1990s and 2000s "changed the situation." Now the Russians, by themselves not at all enemies of the Americans, see the United States as a rival. This was evident both under Obama and earlier under Bush and Cheney. Goodwill has dried up. “You can’t put a new Yeltsin in Russia and allow him to rob a country the way his elite did in the 90s,” Tyler says.
The Russians have returned to their position “by default”: the people are “behind the back of a strong leader.” Voices that do not coincide with this position will be "either not heard or suppressed."
Obviously, we add, both the interviewer and the interviewee doubt the main thing: that the “elites” will allow Mr. Trump to at least come closer to Russia. There are many reasons for this: the military industrial complex is eager for a new arms race, and Trump himself, by nature a businessman, cannot and does not want to refuse the capitalists; almost the entire US Congress is imbued with images of the Cold War; NATO requires a military rival, otherwise NATO loses its raison d'etre; in Syria, jointly fighting the “IG” of the United States and the Russian Federation is hampered by the figure of President Assad, on whom different coalitions have different views. There is, in fact, nothing that would bring Moscow and Washington in the geopolitical field closer together. So where does the new strategy in the White House come from?
The site "The Real News Network" published an interview that presenter Paul Jay took from a publicist living in Moscow - Jeffrey Tayler. The topic of the interview: “Is Russia the“ enemy ”of the United States?” (Quotes in the original.) The interviewer and interviewee undertook to challenge the thesis of Washington politicians that the Russians are “enemies of the American people.”
The site indicates that Jeffrey Tyler is an editor at The Atlantic, the author of seven books, a man who has traveled all over Russia as a correspondent and as a publicist collecting material for future books. Three of these books concern Russia. In Moscow, the journalist lives with 1993 year.
As Paul Jay noted at the beginning of the interview, the hype that happened in the US because of the “Komi case”, the “Russia case” and everything else has one fundamental theme: “Russia is America’s opponent”. Americans hear the word "opponent" again and again. From each TV rushes this statement. Americans are told that Russia is opposed to America for two reasons. First: Russia is ruled by a tyrant, authoritarian Putin. The second reason is international: Putin supports Assad in Syria. In addition, Putin is an opponent of the United States in Ukraine. Well, and so on.
So why all the same Russia is designated as the opponent of the USA? After all, if even what they say about Putin (autocracy, does not allow free elections, suppresses journalists, etc.) is true (and this is not necessarily so), then when something like that prevented the United States from calling someone an ally and a friend, starting with the Saudis or Latin American dictators? The presenter believes that many of them suppressed human rights more seriously than Putin did in Russia.
According to Geoffrey Teyler, “part of the description of the situation” refers to “Russia's unfortunate innate tendency to somehow seek autocracy.” Russians "usually respect a strong ruler." The expert points to kings and Soviet general secretaries. Nevertheless, Putin is inappropriate to compare with Stalin. There is enough freedom on the Internet. There is less freedom of speech on the radio. There is no free public criticism of Putin. This is despite the fact that his popularity rating remains unusually high - more than 80%. The journalist believes that Putin is really popular in Russia. Yes, there are problems: corruption and others, but the general sense is that Putin, especially after the Crimea, has become extremely popular.
Further, the expert notes that "the average Russian is someone like a geopolitical analyst." Americans are a different matter; such interests are usually alien to them. In addition, the Russians “are very proud of their history, In particular, the victory over Hitler. They talk about repeated invasions from the West and the victories of Russia. “This idea of Russia as a country is something like that ... This idea of a country that stretches across 11 time zones is actually quite strong. This is the central unifying element in Russia, the central unifying political element. He always focused on one person, ”the interviewee believes. And even Boris Yeltsin suddenly discovered that he needed to basically join the Russian tradition and crush the opposition: he had to "blow up his own parliament to crush the threat in 1993 year."
The expansion of NATO began under President Clinton, reminds the journalist, and after all, George Bush had the promise of James Baker about NATO’s non-expansion after the reunification of Germany. This is the “national wound of the Yeltsin years,” which allowed Putin to rise. The Yeltsin years were generally the years of "famine, mass demonstrations," as well as "freedoms that the Russians did not know before." After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the standard of living "fell extremely." Under Putin in the early years, the standard of living “rose very quickly and high” due to high oil prices. People associate stability in general with Putin and hope that stability will remain with him. That is one of the reasons Putin’s popularity.
Paul J noted that in the United States there is a lot of hypocrisy about human rights issues, about free and fair elections. However, in the Russian elections democracy is even less. Is it true?
Jeffrey Tyler replies: “Yes. People understand this. ” The “Russian approach” limits candidates. In the next election there will be four or five. And all of them will essentially be "approved by the state."
Paul Jay does not consider Russia a geopolitical rival. Russians have “many nuclear bombs,” so a “theoretical existential threat” exists. Yes, there are differences in Syria and Ukraine. There is a difference in rivalry for influence and power in general. But Russia is not a geopolitical rival. Russia is far from the economic level of China. Here, China is definitely a "real competitor to the United States." So what is this Russia for the United States?
Jeffrey Tyler says: “I think Americans are looking for an enemy in Russia" by default. " This is what the military-industrial complex was created for. Eisenhower warned about this when he left the White House, and Kennedy could not cope with it. ” Since then, anti-Russian sentiments have only grown. Carriers do not need the United States to fight the "IG" (prohibited in the Russian Federation) or other terrorist threats. All this is necessary for the potential confrontation of Russia.
Paul Jay: “Maybe I think naively, but I think that Russia, for example, is somehow going to - what? Capture Europe, end American influence in Europe? .. ”Very interesting materials were on WikiLeaks at the time, which explain why the war in Libya happened. In Rome, Gazprom used the Italian oil company. WikiLeaks, who acquired the diplomatic information, reported that Gazprom was using Italians as an intermediary for "creating an energy loop around Europe." And here Russia really appears as a truly aggressive state.
Jeffrey Tyler replies: “As I recall, when the decision was made to intervene in Libya, Hillary Clinton recommended Obama to create a fly-by zone for the United States, if you remember, she called it immediately after meeting with the leaders of the oil industry. It is possible that the flow of information, which was not known in 2011, actually ... forced her to declare that we need to get there [to Libya] and thwart any Russian plans to expand to Libya. ”
Paul Jay thinks it's paradoxical, because “in the end,” Obama “agreed with the Russians” and actually told them: “If you help us get rid of Gaddafi, you can keep your business.” That is exactly what happened: “The Russians really changed their position and said:“ It’s time for Gaddafi to leave. ” “In the end,” says Jay, “Gazprom, if I understand this correctly, secured this deal and really got access to a lot of Libyan oil and gas.”
Jeffrey Tailer adds: “Well, in fact, Putin was pulling the strings at that time ...”
Paul Jay: “Yes, that's exactly what I intended. Yes".
At the same time, Jeffrey Tailer remarks: “That's right. Putin did not approve of the overthrow of Gaddafi and was dissatisfied with his president at the time ”[Medvedev]. Strange! After all, now Putin seeks to maintain public order, as, for example, in Syria with Assad, and objects to the chaos that is happening in Libya.
Paul Jay notes here that the American rich have been “investing in Russophobia for decades to justify the production weapons". In addition, "they would like to return to the good old days." These are the times of Yeltsin, when chaos is created, when there is no strong centralized state, when Western oligarchs have access to the wealth of Russia, especially oil. Destabilization of Russia is profitable for them. They do not want to deal with a state that can stand up to them.
With this, Tyler agrees: “Yes. I think it is true. Russia does not need guarantees of US security, such as the Saudis and the countries of the Persian Gulf. Russia is a competitor, and it is a country that will not succumb to pressure from the United States. I think this in its essence already causes hostility, at least, among high-ranking officials of the United States. ” As long as Russia has a nuclear arsenal and while it controls its own territory, there is apparently no way to force it to submit to the deals that the United States imposed on Russia during Yeltsin’s time.
Paul Jay admits that, “in addition to the usual partisan politics,” Trump is ready to lead an “energy game” and at the same time cooperate with Russia. Perhaps this fits into his geopolitical strategy, which proclaims a “global war” against Islamic terrorism. Trump could at least “neutralize or ease tensions” with Russia. Of course, Russia wants to participate in the fight against IG. In fact, she is even more willing to wage a war against terrorism than the Americans, Jay said. There are a lot of similarities with the interests that Trump previously identified. On the other hand, for the American elite, it seems, more important is the preservation of the Cold War or something similar that would contribute to the destabilization of Russia.
Jeffrey Tyler believes that this kind of elite strategy is erroneous "for several reasons." First, when the United States and Russia collaborated after the collapse of the USSR, “a lot of goodwill from the Russians” was shown. Secondly, the late expansion of NATO in the 1990s and 2000s "changed the situation." Now the Russians, by themselves not at all enemies of the Americans, see the United States as a rival. This was evident both under Obama and earlier under Bush and Cheney. Goodwill has dried up. “You can’t put a new Yeltsin in Russia and allow him to rob a country the way his elite did in the 90s,” Tyler says.
The Russians have returned to their position “by default”: the people are “behind the back of a strong leader.” Voices that do not coincide with this position will be "either not heard or suppressed."
Obviously, we add, both the interviewer and the interviewee doubt the main thing: that the “elites” will allow Mr. Trump to at least come closer to Russia. There are many reasons for this: the military industrial complex is eager for a new arms race, and Trump himself, by nature a businessman, cannot and does not want to refuse the capitalists; almost the entire US Congress is imbued with images of the Cold War; NATO requires a military rival, otherwise NATO loses its raison d'etre; in Syria, jointly fighting the “IG” of the United States and the Russian Federation is hampered by the figure of President Assad, on whom different coalitions have different views. There is, in fact, nothing that would bring Moscow and Washington in the geopolitical field closer together. So where does the new strategy in the White House come from?
Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information