The commonplace of anti-Russian criticism ("CounterPunch", USA)
Roger Cohen by himself is not worth the comments and timing of Counterpunch readers. But as a model and warning about America’s foreign policy position, and even more as a center of American ideological attraction, in both cases aimed at ensuring the global political and economic domination of its advanced capitalism system, it’s just perfect, as evidenced by its New York Times article from 26 June, under the name Counterrevolutionary Russia (Counter-Revolutionary Russia). Perhaps, until now, no one seriously thought about the Cold War as a completely feasible confrontational idea, as well as bringing the EU through NATO close to the Russian borders while simultaneously creating a sanitary cordon around China with a view to isolating and dividing it. (Even the Caribbean crisis, which was by no means a childish prank, and against the background of its melodramaism did not have such a potential for total destruction, which is now seen in the swift, but rather quiet development of events.) Cohen and the New York Times, these brave fighters for the American cause imperialism, seeking to divert people's attention from the dynamics underlying the events that quickly split our world into two parts.
He first gives the wrong characterization of the worldhistorical the role of Russia, as if Stalin’s idea of socialism in a single country did not materialize. He says that the expansion after 1945 was connected with the sorrowful impressions of the Nazi extermination policy, the death of a huge number of people and the devastation of World War II, which made it necessary to secure Russia's borders. (Now such a need arises again in light of US-EU-NATO expansion, as well as the deployment of troops and heavy weapons near Russian borders.) Cohen believes that isolation and backwardness are the direct opposite of expansion in this century. “For most of the 20th century, Russia was a revolutionary state whose goal was to spread communist ideology throughout the world. In the 21st century, it became the leading counter-revolutionary power. ” And immediately after this, the author in his analysis moves away from the gross and specific issues of power politics, intervention, conquests and expansion of markets, moving into an obscure area of what we call cultural wars - Russia and Putin, embittered by same-sex marriage, etc. Thus, Cohen writes, “The escalation of the conflict between the West and Moscow is portrayed as political, military and economic. In fact, everything is much deeper. It is cultural in nature. President Vladimir Putin called himself the guardian of an absolutist culture that opposes, as Russia sees it, the predatory and relativistic culture of the West. ”
This is not a black-and-white analysis, in which there is absolutism in Russia and the predatory-relativistic culture of the West (speaking sarcastically). Yes, predatory (Cohen in his article praises capitalism as something equal to democracy and freedom, although it does so quite ironically) and relativistic (after all, what falls into its category of exclusivity should not take an absolutist quality). In this case, no attempt is made to show Russian absolutism. In fact, the article does not present any evidence regarding the views of Putin and unnamed intellectuals, why such a dichotomy causes suspicion from the very beginning. Moreover, in the course of such a cultural diversion, political correctness turns into the substance that pulls the world system to war. Forget about the huge military spending, the worldwide network of military bases, the political leaders who demonize Putin with Russia and China and China, for the decisive factor here is the hostility of our enemies to rights that have dignity in themselves (the list is given), however, It seems to me that it can hardly be put on a par with questions of war and peace, class privileges, labor and racial exploitation, food security, and if we go further, then with questions of capitalism, added value and the phenomenon of alienation That have a direct and complete related to the strengthening of discriminatory social systems.
Further, according to Cohen: “If you listen to pro-Putin intellectuals today, you will hear a boring list of complaints about the“ revolutionary ”West with its anti-religious support for same-sex marriage, radical feminism, euthanasia, homosexuality and other manifestations of“ decadent “. They say that the West uses every opportunity to globalize these “subversive” values, often under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. ” And I thought globalization has other problems that it should think about, even under the guise of promoting democracy. These are Morgan, Chase, and Monsanto, and the overthrow of popular leaders, and simply organizing joint maneuvers with our friends and allies — all for the sake of strengthening American wealth and power. And then, because there is also a cold war, which turns into a hot one. She has nothing to do with radical feminism, euthanasia and homosexuality. However, Cohen does not weaken the pressure; by his enumerations, he disarms the reader, and turns Putin into a beast with numerous phobias: “On the contrary, these intellectuals (still unnamed) are called Putin’s Russia a proud stronghold of the fight against the West, rejecting religious values, a country that increasingly believes in Orthodoxy , being confident that no nation is able to survive the "relativization of" sacred truths ".
Here we get an idea of the American mindset, of Cohen as an ordinary ordinary person, or at least as a typical representative of the brain trusts, the Pentagon's bureaucratic apparatus and the executive branch - up to and including the President of the United States. No, they are not going to fight on the carpet for cultural freedoms; hostility towards Russia and China consists of fears, memories, self-righteousness and arrogance. We are persuaded to believe in the historical, cultural and ideological invariance of Russia from the time of the revolution to the present day. Although it is known that over time she developed significant capitalist traits, residual distrust and suspicions that communism was hidden somewhere in the bushes, and hatred (this is by no means an exaggeration) are so strong psychologically that we cannot let them die. If we hadn’t cultivated such feelings and hysteria with such persistence and consistency, where would our huge military budget be, on which our own sense of security and American identity depends, where would our economic growth and fight against recession be? But in order to put forward arguments about an absolutist religion, and with it about cultural retrograde, it is necessary to show violations of such immutability. But the confusing image of Russian religiosity (what happened to the communist atheists?) May well seem attractive to many Americans, and this will reduce tension and antipathy if such religiosity suddenly becomes known. What I want to say here: the use of contrasts in Russian history as a means of politicizing the conflict between the US and Russia, and at the same time, asserting Russia's immutability for the same purposes cannot be called a winning argument.
Perhaps absolutism here is called upon to play the role of not such a secret thread connecting communism with counter-revolution, but immutability with the absence of such. Cohen exposes the Crimea and Ukraine very one-sidedly, ignoring Russia's claims to the first and the claims of the sponsored coup (in which the fascist elements actively participated) of America to the second. An attempt is made to defame Russia's reputation in passing, and then it’s called the main source of the conflict: “If we go beyond Putin’s annexation of the Crimea and the small war it raises in eastern Ukraine (although it is quite large, since more than six thousand people died on it), that the decision on cultural opposition to the West suggests that the confrontation with Russia will last for decades. [Here cultural confrontation is the most important element that prolongs the conflict, supposedly arising for other reasons.] Communism was a global ideology, and Putinism is something less. But we have a war of ideas, and in it the cornerstone of the Russian ideology is the opposition of the counter-revolution and the godless West with its insinuations. ”
This secret thread that ties communism to Putinism is what makes you passionate about power. This idea is underlined by the supposed period of quiet serenity that separated them, although it is immediately refuted: “The illusion of a beneficial rapprochement has gone away through interdependence. [The cited dates indicate that only Putin is to blame for everything.] Something fundamental has changed, going far beyond the territorial dispute. Putin decided that the decisive factor in his power would be conflict with the West. The only question is, what kind of conflict does he mean - limited or total. ” An excellent example of the use of insinuations. We see Russian troops concentrating in a giant armada near the US East Coast. But I’m interested in something else: does Putin really think day and night about the conflict with the West, or does he have other concerns like modernizing the country, which Cohen completely refuses (urging us to believe that Russia's backwardness is inevitable), believing what is it beyond his power or Russia?
Such backwardness pulls Russia to the east, which poses a threat to America and the West, since Moscow does not humbly ask about friendship with the European Union. Here, Cohen stumbles over something important: it is the West that by its actions led to the rapprochement between Russia and China. But he denies the destructiveness of such actions and says that China rejects such a rapprochement: “This decision of Russia [on conflict with the West] has strategic consequences that the West is only beginning to realize. Here there is a more significant link to the East than the turn of President Obama towards Asia. [Yeah, tell it to the marines from the carrier strike groups that are already there, and also remember that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is an economic supplement to military policy.] Putin is more interested in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is based on China and Russia, than in cooperation with the Group of Eight (from which Russia was expelled) and with the European Union. ” By the way, Russia was excluded from the G-8, and China was not allowed into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the purpose of which is precisely to “exclude and not let it go”. It was for this reason that the two countries became even closer.
Touching on their relationship, Cohen, together with the US-EU political leaders, exudes confidence (fingers crossed) that they are doomed from the very beginning, taking into account the logic of its analysis - after all, backward Russia has a place in the dustbin of history: interest because Moscow hostile to the West is useful for defending its own authoritarian political model [here he simply could not resist the temptation to attack China], and because he sees Russia and the former Soviet republics Central Asia offers favorable economic opportunities for itself. But China’s fierce striving for modernization is unattainable if it starts acting through Russia looking back. There are certain limitations in today's Russian-Chinese rapprochement. ” There is such an impression that everyone wants to exterminate Russia because of its alleged backwardness. Here is an example of an authoritative geopolitical position, in all Cohen’s glibness and talkativeness: “As one European representative said, speaking at a conference at Harvard University, Russia is a“ losing challenge ”to the West, since it refused to modernize and globalize, and China can become a“ winning ” a challenge, "because he put everything on a high-tech and modern economy."
And if Russia is not backward enough, let's make it that way. Her backwardness is a threat to the world. Then, naturally, the punitive part of the argument follows. Cohen writes: “Of course, due to its irrationality and quixotic, losing challenges are especially dangerous. Putin cut off a piece of Ukraine after it decided to sign a trade pact with the European Union. ” And then he goes to intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombers. weapons. Then Cohen asks the question: “How should the West react?” The self-evident democratic integrity of the question is responsible for itself: Russia’s influence must be further taken away: “The West cannot change the attractiveness of its values for the whole world, and this is confirmed by the fact that a huge number of people dies in an attempt to get into the European Union. (Rich Russians, too, are sweeping down on the West in search of legality.) What Russia considers to be “subversive actions” of the West (such as a roll of sensible Ukrainians towards Europe) must and will continue. ”
Yes, go on. This is pronounced pronounced and piercing. Russians have no legality, and “sensible” Ukrainians are leaning toward Europe. Not satisfied with this, Cohen calls for a more aggressive stance on geopolitical issues: “The West must defend the rights of people living in the lands between it and the East. [And while he does this, Putin will not lift a finger.] Citizens of Ukraine, Moldavia, Armenia, Georgia, and other states have the right to attain a Western level of well-being through the same Western institutions, if they wish. The undoubted magnet for them will be Poland and the Baltic countries, which are now under the protection of their membership in NATO. ” He mentions the very states where military exercises are held and troops are concentrated on the border with Russia. (In my recent article in Counterpunch, I described the climate of intimidation and intimidation that Cohen brushes aside with extraordinary ease, forgetting even to mention the presence of B-52 bomber on stage, which Putin should simply overlook. But not a single sensible Russian can do this, remembering well about the Nazi attack during World War II.)
Border security is important for Russia as it is for no other country, because it has undergone tremendous destruction, which in modern times no other country knew. However, the author continues carefree and indifferently: "This new defense [in the lands between West and East] should be based on the policy of defending Germany during the Cold War: firmness in conjunction with dialogue." He quotes Tomasz Siemoniak from Poland (like me), saying that NATO is being overly cautious in relations with Russia, and then talks about the forces and means being moved to the current front line: these are NATO exercises in Latvia, new five-thousand-strong alliance rapid reaction force called “Spearhead,” displacement “250 tanks and other equipment to temporary bases in six Eastern European countries, which in itself is very impressive. " But this is not enough: weapons are also being stored in the front-line warehouses and a demonstration of force is underway, which is a blatant provocation. But, Cohen says, “the constant and significant deployment of heavy weapons in the region is necessary in order to signal to Putin how constant commitment to a policy of sanctions is necessary, which must be maintained until Ukraine regains full control over its borders.” What about thinking about overthrowing a legitimate government?
This is not an analysis of the content of Roger Cohen's article in the New York Times. This is simply an illustration of how the brainwashing is conducted, which is characteristic of the privatization and militarization of American culture, attached to the foreign policy mechanism of war, intervention and world domination. In our brain trusts and government offices live hundreds, if not thousands of Rogers Cohen, which is no better and no worse than himself. All of them are psychologically obsessed with myths about American Exclusivity. In his final words in the article, he extols what, in my opinion, weakens the democratic prestige of our nation in the world: "As a result, the very Western ideas and institutions that Putin humiliates will become the greatest advantage of the West in the impending long struggle against the Russian counterrevolution." But what Cohen and his ilk cannot recognize is that the United States is the brightest global model of counterrevolution.
Information