American media: We can and should talk with Putin, not to demonize it

13

Американские СМИ: Мы можем и должны говорить с Путиным, а не демонизировать его

The obsession of Congress and the American mainstream alleged computer hackers attack Russian presidential election of 2016 seems to me to be not only a dangerous provocation against a serious opponent armed with nuclear weapons. It seems to me also baseness and hypocrisy – after all for anybody not a secret that America itself after the Second World war regularly interfered in the politics of other countries, and in a way, in comparison with which the Russian hacker attack looks like a children’s matinee. In addition to the destructive wars, which killed millions of innocent Koreans and Vietnamese, these interventions included a well-planned overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Chile. Armed aggression, carried out after September 11, was aimed at and achieved regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Do not stop attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, is increasing the US role in the Syrian civil war. More specifically on Russian-American relations: the United States actively participated in the attempts of what might be called beautiful a euphemism for “democracy” in the two former Soviet republics. So, America has supported the Pro-Western anti-Russian forces in now independent Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004 and 2013).

The most serious provocation of America in Russia was to promote the NATO Alliance after the Cold War close to the Russian border. Such muscle-flexing has directly led to the rapid rise in the popularity of Vladimir Putin. This well-established nationalist leader took harsh actions against the West in Georgia and Ukraine. Probably in the future it will behave similarly to prevent the occurrence of situations which, in his opinion, threaten the national security of Russia. At the same time, according to American intelligence, the Russian government has carried out this, seemingly, desperate a step back, trying to influence the U.S. presidential election and cracking private e-mails of the National Committee of the Democratic party and “fake information” concerning Hillary Clinton. The motive, apparently, was the hope that the contents of these e-mails and fake news would somehow discredit Clinton in the eyes of American voters and help the Donald Trump. The fact that trump, in the Russian view, would be less cruel to their plans for the implementation of its vital national interests.

The likelihood that the Russians will actually affect the results of the American elections, it seems to me very small for two important reasons. First, the majority of American voters, based on a long tradition of voting, vote with intelligence, not emotions. It is unlikely that they would be read or taken seriously the contents of hacked emails revealing details of the cuisine of the democratic party. In addition, it is unlikely that most of them would believe the incredible stories about Hillary from dubious Internet sources. And, secondly, as we now know, in the hacked emails did not contain such information about Clinton, which could seriously undermine its position among its supporters. Nevertheless, leading American politicians and major publications can not calm down and continue to scare all the meanness of Russia, demanding the appropriate punishment.

Thus, it appears that if the US does not want other countries meddling in their election, then you first need to write its own practice of force overthrow unwanted governments of other countries. Instead, when faced with minimum resistance inside the country and abroad, the US continues automatically to apply economic sanctions and threaten the use of its armed forces to punish any state that stands in the way of global domination of the United States. To justify such actions, American politicians and the media demonized aspirations and discredit the character of the leaders of the countries-rivals. For example, Vladimir Putin, appears not only in the image of a ruthless autocrat who do not observe international rules, but it also creates an image of a village rowdy and murderer of political opponents. Although a recent article in Forbes (by Kenneth Rapoza) should call into question such a characterization.

Interview with Putin Oliver stone

In the past weeks, interview taken by Oliver stone Putin and shown on cable channel “Showtime” became a subject of notable interest, although the mass media have not given this interview almost no attention. And even this small attention was mainly expressed in derision of the questions asked by the stone, which was supposedly too respectful and not critical. Derided also answers Putin, who allegedly was constantly led the conversation to the side and was posturing. However, the Forbes author Kenneth Raposa’s opinion of Putin as a Russian nationalist and the leader of the world, which news shows have turned into a Scarecrow, and, according to many senators, constantly invite on TV, Putin is more evil than ISIS.

Output: the main means of conflict resolution should be diplomacy, not war.

Based on the responses that Putin gave Oliver stone, we can conclude that Putin has decided to continue to play the role of a Russian nationalist leader. However, he combines the realization of the vital interests of their country and conflict resolution with the United States through diplomacy and compromise, although Putin believes that Washington’s foreign policy bureaucracy “will never change”. Perhaps Putin, like many progressive-minded Americans had the impression that the bureaucracy is stuck in the ideological fantasies of American exceptionalism, granting the right to permanent expansion of its strategic and economic dominance in the world. The Americans and the Russians, it is important to understand that all issues that divide their governments, can be resolved through compromise and should not hinder constructive joint work of both countries for the benefit of the whole world.

This assessment inevitably leads to an obvious question: if we can honestly act to resolve the conflict with a single country of the globe, whose nuclear potential is approximately equal to ours, why not try to do this peacefully? We probably will not be able to explain the impossibility of a peaceful dialogue, if we continue to harp on digital Russia’s intervention in our presidential election. A similar opinion expressed in last year’s article in the Huffington Post from July 27, 2016, where the authors Ryan Grim and Arthur Delaney say: “for over 100 years, almost without interruption, the US is constantly doing everything in their power to influence the election results – including murder unwanted politicians”. The wave of Russophobia, which we are seeing today, it seems to me the result of the inability of the American government to build a constructive relationship with the second most important nuclear power in the world. Just think about what benefits and what progress could be made in case of fruitful cooperation of the USA and Russia today! Brief list of accomplishments could include peace in Syria, control of international terrorism, nuclear disarmament, reduction of global warming and the progress in combating hunger and poverty around the world.

Unfortunately, America’s political leadership, apparently, unable to look at international issues from the point of view of other States. The American people also convinced themselves that, waging war on behalf of their country, they most efficiently serve the achievement of peace. Although America, Russia and most other developed countries are becoming more interdependent, however, it remains unclear whether they will go to the small but necessary concessions necessary for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It cannot be denied that without such a compromise the world can easily drown in violence, plunging the majority of mankind in an unending hell, and subjecting the survivors of exposure to radiation. In these conditions we, US citizens, should do everything in our power to convince our government to negotiate, not to speak from a position of strength. The choice of our government, I think, will decide where we are heading: towards a harmonious global community, or to Armageddon.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here