Read the rest of the story by clicking on the Title link, below...
Zelensky’s Saakashvili Moment
Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
In 2008 as then-president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili realized that his attack on Russian peacekeepers and civilians in South Ossetia had elicited a Russian military response that ended up with the Russian army practically knocking on his door in Tbilisi, he infamously appeared on a BBC interview voraciously chewing his necktie. It demonstrated to the world that the plucky US-educated leader who dared take on the Russian bear for the sake of "democracy" was in fact an unhinged and unstable... Read the rest of the story by clicking on the Title link, below... Zelensky’s Saakashvili Moment Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
0 Comments
In the weeks leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, those warning of the possible dangers of U.S. involvement were assured that such concerns were baseless. The prevailing line insisted that nobody in Washington is even considering let alone advocating that the U.S. become militarily involved in a conflict with Russia. That the concern was based not on the belief that the U.S. would actively seek such a war, but rather on the oft-unintended consequences of being swamped with war propaganda and the high levels of tribalism, jingoism and emotionalism that accompany it, was ignored. It did not matter how many wars one could point to in history that began unintentionally, with unchecked, dangerous tensions spiraling out of control. Anyone warning of this obviously dangerous possibility was met with the “straw man” cliché: you are arguing against a position that literally nobody in D.C. is defending. Less than a week into this war, that can no longer be said. One of the media's most beloved members of Congress, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), on Friday explicitly and emphatically urged that the U.S. military be deployed to Ukraine to establish a “no-fly zone” — i.e., American soldiers would order Russia not to enter Ukrainian airspace and would directly attack any Russian jets or other military units which disobeyed. That would, by definition and design, immediately ensure that the two countries with by far the planet's largest nuclear stockpiles would be fighting one another, all over Ukraine. Kinzinger's fantasy that Russia would instantly obey U.S. orders due to rational calculations is directly at odds with all the prevailing narratives about Putin having now become an irrational madman who has taken leave of his senses — not just metaphorically but medically — and is prepared to risk everything for conquest and legacy. This was not the first time such a deranged proposal has been raised; days before Kinzinger unveiled his plan, a reporter asked Pentagon spokesman John Kirby why Biden has thus far refused this confrontational posture. The Brookings Institution's Ben Wittes on Sunday demanded: “Regime change: Russia.” The President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, celebrated that “now the conversation has shifted to include the possibility of desired regime change in Russia.” Having the U.S. risk global nuclear annihilation over Ukraine is an indescribably insane view, as one realizes upon a few seconds of sober reflection. We had a reminder of that Sunday morning when “Putin ordered his nuclear forces on high alert, reminding the world he has the power to use weapons of mass destruction, after complaining about the West’s response to his invasion of Ukraine” — but it is completely unsurprising that it is already being suggested. (bigger) There is a reason I devoted the first fifteen minutes of my live video broadcast on Thursday about Ukraine not to the history that led us here and the substance of the conflict (I discussed that in the second half), but instead to the climate that arises whenever a new war erupts, instantly creating propaganda-driven, dissent-free consensus. There is no propaganda as potent or powerful as war propaganda. It seems that one must have lived through it at least once, as an engaged adult, to understand how it functions, how it manipulates and distorts, and how one can resist being consumed by it. As I examined in the first part of that video discussion, war propaganda stimulates the most powerful aspects of our psyche, our subconscious, our instinctive drives. It causes us, by design, to abandon reason. It provokes a surge in tribalism, jingoism, moral righteousness and emotionalism: all powerful drives embedded through millennia of evolution. The more unity that emerges in support of an overarching moral narrative, the more difficult it becomes for anyone to critically evaluate it. The more closed the propaganda system is — either because any dissent from it is excluded by brute censorship or so effectively demonized through accusations of treason and disloyalty — the more difficult it is for anyone, all of us, even to recognize one is in the middle of it. When critical faculties are deliberately turned off based on a belief that absolute moral certainty has been attained, the parts of our brain armed with the capacity of reason are disabled. That is why the leading anti-Russia hawks such as former Obama Ambassador Michael McFaul and others are demanding that no “Putin propagandists” (meaning anyone who diverges from his views of the conflict) even be permitted a platform, and why many are angry that Facebook has not gone far enough by banning many Russian media outlets from advertising or being monetized. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), using the now-standard tactic of government officials dictating to social media companies which content they should and should not allow, announced on Saturday: “I'm concerned about Russian disinformation spreading online, so today I wrote to the CEOs of major tech companies to ask them to restrict the spread of Russian propaganda.” Suppressing any divergent views or at least conditioning the population to ignore them as treasonous is how propagandistic systems remain strong. It is genuinely hard to overstate how overwhelming the unity and consensus in U.S. political and media circles is. It is as close to a unanimous and dissent-free discourse as anything in memory, certainly since the days following 9/11. Marco Rubio sounds exactly like Bernie Sanders, and Lindsay Graham has no even minimal divergence from Nancy Pelosi. Every word broadcast on CNN or printed in The New York Timesabout the conflict perfectly aligns with the CIA and Pentagon's messaging. And U.S. public opinion has consequently undergone a radical and rapid change; while recent polling had shown large majorities of Americans opposed to any major U.S. role in Ukraine, a new Gallup poll released on Friday found that “52% of Americans see the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as a critical threat to U.S. vital interests” with almost no partisan division (56% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats), while “85% of Americans now view [Russia] unfavorably while 15% have a positive opinion of it.” Read the rest here. War Propaganda About Ukraine Becoming More Militaristic, Authoritarian, and Reckless Click on the headline to read the full story from
Is the Russian incursion into Ukraine a desperate "land grab" by an unhinged Russian president? Is it as simple as that? That is what the mainstream media across the political spectrum is pumping out. And, as with all propaganda wars, anyone outside the lines is demonized. But what if there is something beyond the bumper sticker talking points? Watch today's Liberty Report: What's To Blame For The Mess In Ukraine? Click on the headline to read the full story from When the Bush Administration announced in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would be eligible for NATO membership, I knew it was a terrible idea. Nearly two decades after the end of both the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, expanding NATO made no sense. NATO itself made no sense. Explaining my “no” vote on a bill to endorse the expansion, I said at the time: NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary… This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution.Unfortunately, as we have seen this past week, my fears have come true. One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it. NATO itself was a huge mistake. When in 1949 the US Senate initially voted on the NATO treaty, Sen. Robert Taft – known as “Mr. Republican” – gave an excellent speech on why he voted against creating NATO. Explaining his “no” vote, Taft said: … the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia… A joint military program has already been made… It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace.Taft continued: If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia…and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed…How right he was. NATO went off the rails long before 2008, however. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 and by the start of the Korean War just over a year later, NATO was very much involved in the military operation of the war in Asia, not Europe! NATO's purpose was stated to "guarantee the safety and freedom of its members by political and military means." It is a job not well done! I believe as strongly today as I did back in my 2008 House Floor speech that, “NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.” In the meantime, expansion should be off the table. The risks do not outweigh the benefits! It All Comes Back to NATO Click on the headline to read the full story from (This is a version of an RPI update to subscribers sent yesterday. Subscribe here.) The media and the war machine (or do I repeat myself?) want us to take sides in the Russo/Ukraine war. To those of us with long histories in military conflicts in which the US foreign policy establishment, media, and military have an interest, the terms are always framed as white hats and black hats - and you had better choose a side! "Are you on the side of FREEDOM or are you a puppet of [insert Hitler proxy here]?" You must take a side. (In fact you must choose the side the Beltway blob wants you to choose). The US government never fights in the self-interest of the elites. It only fights (directly and by proxy) for the freedom and liberation of others. If you doubt that you are un-American. History started when they tell you it started. Never mind about the past or how US intervention created the circumstances that led to whatever horrible outcome we witness. The Iraqis would greet us as liberators, we were told. They will love our bombs. Likewise the Libyans once their leader is knife-raped to death. And then of course the Syrians once our al-Qaeda "moderate" head-choppers are put in charge. The rest of the world is so so grateful that the omniscient Washington foreign policy elites can choose their fate for them. Surely they are too foolish to decide for themselves! Ironically, as the US government and its obedient media were hysterically telling us we must demand Russian blood for their attack on a Ukraine that had not attacked them first, the US government that same day bombed a Somalia that had not attacked it first. And let's not even talk about the horrific Saudi genocide (with full US support) in Yemen. With one voice the US media, political elites, and brainwashed sheeple scream out: "You can't just go and attack a country that hasn't attacked you!!!" And the people of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and yes even Afghanistan scratch their heads in wonder at the ignorance, hypocrisy, and cynicism. Like an alcoholic may occasionally get a moment of clarity, a politician may sometimes get a moment of honesty. California US Congressman and lead "Russiagate" conspiracy theorist Adam Schiff, spilled the beans in a 2020 speech: The US uses Ukraine to fight Russia, but then when Russia fights back we have to pour all our vodka into the street and launch WWIII. The US military-industrial-media-Congressional complex that is behind this disastrous policy knows well, however, that war brings bigger dividends: This is not a WHATABOUT column, however. It's just to point out how manipulated Americans are by the unholy partnership between government, Washington parasitical elites, and the media. Perhaps the only thing worse are the third-tier flunkies who do their bidding in international organizations. Yesterday NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO countries were going to send more weapons to Ukraine. Brilliant! Bureaucrats, especially stupid ones, always double down then their policies are shown to be failures. As one report quoted the failed Swedish politico/NATO chief: 'We see rhetoric, the messages, which is strongly indicating that the aim is to remove the democratically-elected government in Kiev,' he announced after a meeting with NATO leaders.What? NATO must send weapons to Ukraine because Russia is attempting to remove its democratically-elected government? How dare they! Don't they know that's OUR job? Here's the side we should be on in Ukraine and everywhere else: non-intervention in the affairs of others. Today's Ukraine nightmare is the product of a US foreign policy that overthrew not one, but two elected Ukrainian governments because the people chose a president that Washington's pampered elites didn't like. As I wrote in an article yesterday, one thing we can take with us from Russia actually doing what it long said it would do if Ukraine was armed by hostile governments and pulled toward NATO membership is that: Whether America and the EU like it or not, the era of 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality' is well and truly over. Its end is not to be mourned but to be celebrated. The only pro-America foreign policy is non-intervention in the affairs of others.Yes, this is a good thing and it should be celebrated. Don't worry - it's not un-patriotic to applaud an authentically pro-America foreign policy! Now is the time to demand a change in how things are done. It does not weaken the US to decide to not meddle in the affairs of others. On the contrary, we are strengthened by shrugging off the burden of (very badly) running the rest of the globe. Unless anyone believes we are stronger by burning one trillion dollars for the US military empire each and every year. Let's ask the truckers and the waiters and the welders of America how they like billions of their hard-earned dollars laundered to the ultra-rich Beltway elites through corrupt regimes abroad. Foreign aid is falsely perceived as a plate of rice and beans to a motherless child in a war-torn hellhole. The reality is that foreign aid is that which re-models all the bathrooms in million dollars mansions in McLean VA and its evil environs. Gold plated Beltway toilets. The ignoble flotsam of the corrupt US empire. Ukraine: The Propaganda Wars Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity As of this writing, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is hunkered down in his bunker somewhere in Kiev, as the sound of the encroaching war gets closer and closer. A grim scene, to be sure. All the US and EU kisses and roses leading up to this end have turned to dust and barbed wire, as a no-doubt deeply bitter Zelensky has nothing left but to cry out in anger: The chips are down, as much of the US-equipped and backed Ukrainian military appears to have turned and ran as Russian forces approached. That is not to say that there has not been death and destruction on both sides. The battle for Kherson was brutal, with plenty of Russian losses. But nevertheless, as of this writing, it has fallen to Russian control. Kiev in the main may well fall within the next 12-24 hours. Russian troops are already in the city. And Zelensky is in his bunker with fewer and fewer to take his calls. The cavalry he believed was promised him will not be coming to rescue him. Ukraine will be de-militarized and Ukraine will be neutral. Once held up as a great ally of Washington and Brussels, Zelensky is alone. It brings to mind that great quote I often recycle from RPI academic advisor John Laughland, written as the early US-backed color revolutions rampaged through the former Soviet world in the early 2000s: It is better to be an enemy of the Americans than their friend. If you are their enemy, they might try to buy you; but if you are their friend they will definitely sell you.Zelensky has now learned the bitter truth, which previously favored foreign leaders also learned. Most of their lessons have been even harder than Zelensky's (at least to this point). The bitter truth is that Washington's foreign policy establishment never actually considered Zelensky - or his predecessor Poroshenko - to be allies or partners of the United States. Overflowing with a toxic mix of ignorance, arrogance, and extreme cynicism, Washington's elites have always viewed Ukraine as a tool to "regime-change" a Russia that, after its post-Yeltsin recovery, would no longer take its direction from them. The false gods of American exceptionalism are jealous ones indeed. The American foreign policy establishment wanted a perpetual "Yanks to the Rescue" Russia, whereby US "consultants" and spooks would ensure that the most obsequious candidate would continue to win and rule. A string of Russian presidents who would, à la Shevardnadze and a whole string of other post-Soviet leaders, run the country like a family business: lots of biznis deals for family members...and maybe 10 percent for the "big guy." Americans are victims (willing or not) of a mass media system as propagandistic as any that existed during Soviet Communism. The "party line" is established and it is unwaveringly followed whether the favored flavor is Fox or MSNBC. When it became obvious that Yeltsin's one-time understudy, Vladimir Putin, wasn't going to play that way, the party line came down that he must be demonized. Not carefully studied and where appropriate opposed (on the basis of actual US interests), but rather Putin had to be demonized and, ultimately, "regime-changed." Discourse in the US is so infantile that just writing this objective truth will no doubt land this author in the "Putin's puppet" purgatory. Not for the first time. Most Americans will not have heard - and those who have likely do not care - that twice when the Ukrainian people elected a president who was in favor of maintaining good relations with its Russian neighbor the US intervened and overthrew the government. First time in the 2004-5 "Orange Revolution" and then the fateful 2014 "Maidan" revolt, which was explicitly and overtly supported by senior US government officials on the ground in Kiev including Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland and the late neocon warmonger Sen. John McCain. In the meantime tens of millions of dollars flow from the US taxpayer to favored think tanks, civic organizations, and media outlets via the National Endowment for Democracy (sic) and numerous US-funded related organizations. The goal is the same: manipulate Ukraine so that it remains on Washington's preferred path (toward conflict with Russia). It is fashionable - particularly over the past two days - for even antiwar and "restraint"-promoting scribblers and jaw-boners to fall into tune with the warmongers' songbook of "Russian aggression" as the sole cause of recent bloodshed and destruction. While anyone with an ounce of decency deeply regrets and opposes the use of such massive military force as we have seen recently in Ukraine, if there is one lesson to be learned from this entire miserable chapter (and by "chapter" I mean the entirety of post-Cold War US foreign policy) it is this: There are consequences that come with the belief that the key to peace and prosperity is to remake the world in your own image through the use of overt and covert, violent and non-violent means. That lesson should have been learned with the fall of Soviet communism itself, but the "victors" were too full of hubris to pause for a moment of humility. Wishing reality was one thing and accepting that it is another are two very different things. The distinction must be made or the mass mental illness of "American exceptionalism" can never be cured. Otherwise the consequences next time the tectonic plates shift may be far closer to home. Whether America and the EU like it or not, the era of ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality" is well and truly over. Its end is not to be mourned but to be celebrated. The only pro-America foreign policy is non-intervention in the affairs of others. Ukrainian President Zelensky is unlikely to survive his turn being America's cat's paw to wrong-foot Russia. While he sits in his bunker contemplating his fate, he may well be visited by the ghosts of Saddam and Gaddafi and all those who preceded him in this position. God help him. Washington's Crocodile Tears Over Ukraine's Destruction Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity The Israeli data that nukes the Pfizer vaccine: What did Pfizer know and when did they know it?2/25/2022 Last year, Philip Dormitzer, the chief scientific officer at Pfizer, described Israel as “a sort of laboratory” to “see the effect” of his company’s vaccines. Well, it took over a year into the vaccine drive that injected most Israelis with three shots and some with four to finally publish information on adverse events. What Israel published earlier this month based on a health ministry survey of 2,049 people who got booster shots is not only damning, but unmistakably revealing that there is no way Pfizer did not see these adverse events during the clinical trials in 2020. What did they know and when did they know it? On Feb. 10, the Israeli Health Ministry published (English version here) the results of a survey of adverse events among roughly 2,000 random Israelis who received booster shots. It’s shocking that it took this long for them to conduct such a survey and didn’t do this a year ago, but it’s better late than never. Just the top-line numbers from the survey should alarm us all. A total of 75% of women and 58% of men reported experiencing at least one side effect within the 21- to 30-day follow-up period of the interview. Obviously, the majority of these were minor, but 51% of the women and 35% of the men who experienced a side effect reported that as a result, they had difficulty performing daily activities. Full stop right there. Even before we get into more serious problems. Just the fact that the shot knocked out such a massive percentage of people clearly violates the informed consent through which the shots were marketed and most certainly makes any mandate immoral. Right off the bat, it’s clear that this is not like taking a vitamin D pill. Moreover, the fact that we have zero long-term studies, but such a massive percentage get at least a sick feeling from it in the short run should concern everyone. Again, why wasn’t such a survey done in January 2021 after the first dose? Just take a look at the massive percentage of reports, especially for females, experiencing weakness, muscle ache, shaking, high temperature, and even dizziness and vomiting. (bigger) That is a massive percentage for a product ubiquitously marketed, endorsed, distributed, and then mandated by global governments as the safest and most effective vaccine of all time. And all for a virus that, with most younger people, would cause roughly the same symptoms anyway even after being vaccinated. The fact that this shot was even marketed to younger and healthier people is insane. Yes, some people might have willingly taken a shot if they thought they’d get some flu-like symptoms, but that confidence – that the flu-like symptoms don’t portend more severe long-term damage – can only work for an established vaccine that already has long-term safety data. Now, let’s get to some of the more serious or potentially serious issues. The same table shows that 5.5% reported experiencing chest pain. We already know that there are major safety concerns for cardiovascular issues and that the spike protein is very pro-inflammatory and potentially thrombotic. And remember, this is 5.5% of just one dose. If you extrapolate that to America, where 551 million doses have been administered, that would be approximately 30 million cases of chest pain! It doesn’t necessarily mean that it causes short-term or long-term damage, but again, with a new vaccine with a novel and dangerous mechanism of action and no long-term safety studies, how can this be allowed to continue without further study? A total of 4.5% of those who received booster doses reported neurological side effects. Assuming the doses are all relatively the same, that would extrapolate to roughly 25 million cases of neurological side effects in the United States. It would lend a lot of credence to the military whistleblowers who report seeing more than a tenfold increase in nervous system diagnoses in 2021 and leaves no doubt that the DOD was bluffing when it responded with “revised” data showing not even a modest increase. There’s no doubt that the spike protein of the pathogen causes nervous system disorders in some people, just like it causes cardiovascular disorders, but clearly the shots do as well, and remember they don’t prevent you from getting the pathogen. Read the rest here. The Israeli data that nukes the Pfizer vaccine: What did Pfizer know and when did they know it? Click on the headline to read the full story from
Russia's wide-ranging assault on Ukrainian military targets in the early hours of the morning has surprised Western capitals even as they repeatedly predicted an imminent attack. Propaganda machines on all sides are turned up to maximum. In today's Liberty Report we try to break down the facts and the antecedents with an eye on where things might go from here. Watch today's program: Fog Of War: What's Behind Russia's Ukraine Strike? Click on the headline to read the full story from
President Biden's short address yesterday on the Ukraine crisis contained one amusing point: he told Americans they were going to have to suffer more inflation and higher energy prices because he is standing up for freedom in Ukraine! Many Americans love an aggressive foreign policy, but is it not without risk for Biden to blame economic woes at home on an US interventionism overseas? Don't miss today's Liberty Report: Scapegoat! Biden Blames Inflation On...Putin! Click on the headline to read the full story from The US used to produce experts on Soviet and Russian affairs like Jack Matlock. Today we get the likes of Michael McFaul. The decline of popular interest in Russian-area studies, combined with intellectual laziness on the part of the average US citizen, is to blame. On February 21, Russia’s President Vladmir Putin gave what will most likely go down in history as one of the most important speeches in modern history. It was a brutally honest example of how current events are shaped by the forces of history. What is important about this speech isn’t so much the content–that is now part of the historical record–but rather how it was absorbed and interpreted by those who watched it. As an American imbued with more than a little first-hand insight into Russian affairs, I have been struck by the inability of the American people to comprehend the historical foundation of Putin’s speech. It is not my place to either attack or defend the details put forward by the Russian president. I would hope, however, that my fellow citizens would be able to engage in an informed, intelligent, and rational discussion about the speech, given the immense geopolitical ramifications attached to it. Unfortunately, the average American, lacking both the intellectual training and the critical resource of time, is ill-equipped to participate in such an exercise. Instead, they have subordinated this task to a category of public servant known as the “Russian expert.” Under normal circumstances, one might find the existence of such a class a relief; after all, Americans are willing to entrust their financial security to “financial managers.” Why not surrender the intellectual machinations required to make sense of something as complex as Russian affairs and all that topic entails to the hands of the specialists, men and women schooled in the history, economy, culture, and language of Russia? This isn’t the first time Americans have been called upon to entrust critical Russia-related analysis and the decision-making derived therefrom to so-called “experts.” From 1945 through 1991 the US and Soviet Union were engaged in a massive geopolitical conflict known as the Cold War. I happened to be an eyewitness to the final years leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and to a speech which, in its own way, was as impactful as the one given by Vladimir Putin this week. On June 28, 1988, I was in the second week of work as a member of the advanced party of US inspectors dispatched to the Soviet city of Votkinsk, located about 700 miles (just over 1,000km) east of Moscow, in the foothills of the Ural Mountains. Our job was to work with our Soviet colleagues to make the necessary preparations to receive the main body of 25 inspectors scheduled to arrive on July 1, 1988, when portal monitoring operations began, a month after the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty entered into force. On that date, we would begin our treaty-mandated task of monitoring the activities of the Votkinsk Missile Final Assembly Plant, located some 12 kilometers outside the city of Votkinsk, to make sure the Soviets no longer produced ballistic missiles that had been banned under the terms of the treaty. The advance party was billeted in a well-kept Dacha situated in the woods on the outskirts of the city. Built to house the former Minister of Defense Dmitry Ustinov and his entourage during their frequent visits to Votkinsk, the Dacha was equipped with a well-stocked kitchen, a pool table, and a lounge where one could watch Soviet television. On the evening of June 28, I was surprised to find my Soviet hosts gathered around the television screen. That evening, Mikhail Gorbachev, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), had convened the 19th All-Union Conference of the CPSU. At first blush, I gave the event no thought–just another communist party “yes” fest with officials falling over each other in fawning admiration of a totalitarian leader. I said as much to one of my hosts, an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “You couldn’t be further from the truth,” he replied. “This is a revolution!” Over the course of the next three days, during breaks from what was a very busy schedule, I joined my Soviet hosts as we watched history unfold before us. Gorbachev was introducing real reform–perestroika–to the Soviet people. He was being challenged by the communist party, in the form of his deputy, Yegor Ligachev, and by reformers, in the person of Boris Yeltsin. The conference had turned into an ideological battleground, where the future of the Soviet Union was being decided live, in public, before the Soviet people, for the first time in its history. If you had asked the average American citizen about the importance of the 19th All-Union Party Conference at the time it transpired, they wouldn’t have been able to provide an intelligent answer. Even though the Soviet Union had been elevated to the status of an “Evil Empire” with which the US was prepared to engage in all-out nuclear war to constrain, the American public at that time, much like their counterparts today, was satisfied to leave the heavy thinking in the hands of a class of civil servant, the ‘Soviet expert’ who would monitor the situation and advise the political leadership, and, as needed, the public. Among those who constituted this ‘Soviet expert’ class were a category of military officers known as ‘Soviet Foreign Affairs Officers,’ or FAOs. Provided with advanced linguistic training and graduate-level education before attending a year-long finishing school, the US Army Russia Institute, located in Garmisch, West Germany, a Soviet FAO was a subject-matter expert whose mission was to provide critical insight to policy makers about Soviet issues and, as needed, carry out specific military tasks–such as implementing the INF treaty. The disparity between the Soviet FAO and his or her civilian counterpart was played out live in Votkinsk. The advance party consisted of five persons–three military officers (two FAO-qualified and me) and two civilian civil engineers. At night, when the work was done and the television turned on, you would find the two civil engineers playing pool or reading a book, while the three military officers were glued to the television set. Over the course of the next two years, I bore witness to two critical events transpiring in parallel–the implementation of the INF treaty, and the implementation of perestroika. Both played an important role in shaping the events that led to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. As trained Soviet experts, the FAOs and I were able to provide invaluable insight into the phenomenon of perestroika in the hinterlands of the Soviet Union. That which empowered us was the education we had received in Russian history and affairs from an American academic establishment that had, since the end of the Second World War, been prepared for just this task. The Soviet FAO, together with their counterparts in the State Department and US Intelligence Community, were the beneficiaries of an education system which had seen an explosion in Russian Area Studies during the Second World War, when the Soviet Union was considered an ally, and which only grew after the war ended, and the Soviet Union was reclassified as an enemy. The unique circumstances which gave rise to the study of Russian Affairs in the US allowed for the retention of academic integrity in the face of ideological pressure to paint the Soviet Union in a negative light. One of the clearest examples of this phenomenon can be found in the person of Richard Pipes, a renowned American academic who specialized in Soviet and Russian history and who taught at Harvard for decades while advising various US presidents, most notably Ronald Reagan, on matters pertaining to Soviet policy. Pipes was decidedly anti-Soviet, and the advice he provided was decidedly hardline in nature. His writings, however, were derived from historical fact subjected to proper analysis and scrutiny. His book, The formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and nationalism, 1917-1923, was mandatory reading for any student of Russian studies (indeed, it should be mandatory reading today, given the correlation between its subject matter and the content of Putin’s February 21 speech.) I have a first-edition copy of Pipe’s book in my personal library, and I have made extensive use of it over the years as I try to discern what is transpiring inside the former Soviet Union, and why. Every one of my Soviet ‘expert’ counterparts was a byproduct of an American system of education designed to empower those who participated with critical fact-based discernment skills, capable of separating fact from fiction and filtering out personal and institutional bias. The result was a system that produced people like Jack Matlock, the US Ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, and George Kolt, the CIA’s top Soviet analyst. Both will go down in history as predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union (the thing about experts is that while their advice might be prescient, it is still held hostage by politicians who answer to a domestic constituency which is often unmoved by fact-based analysis.) The end of the Cold War, however, brought with it the end of both the Soviet expert and the academic establishment that produced them. By way of example, I had been given two classified commendations by the Director, CIA, for my work in the Soviet Union. But in 1992, after being invited to CIA Headquarters to interview for an analytical position, I was told by the head of the new Russia analytical unit that I was too imbued with “Cold War” thinking; the world had moved on. Russia became a playground for a new category of ‘expert,’ the political and economic ‘exploiter’ who viewed Russia as a defeated power subject to the whim of the American victor. This class was dominated by the likes of Michael McFaul and his ilk, people who viewed Boris Yeltsin not as the by-product of Soviet and Russian history, but rather a malleable tool in their effort to transform Russia into a compliant “democracy” subservient to their new American masters. Russian-area studies stopped being the go-to major when it came to interacting with the former Soviet Union, replaced by business and economics degrees sought by people whose purpose wasn’t to understand Russia but rather to exploit it. Interest in Russian studies dwindled, a byproduct of a decline in interest and numbers, in terms of graduate students and faculty. Moreover, the system became infected by the reality of “garbage in, garbage out”: as the old Cold War Soviet specialists were retired from their posts in academia, they were not replaced by people possessing similar academic discipline, but rather a new generation of academics governed more by political perception than fact-based reality. Again, Michael McFaul comes to mind, a man driven not by the complex history of the Soviet Union and Russia, but rather his own vision of what Russia should be. It is the Michael McFauls of the world who dominate the mainstream media today, people whose academic pronouncements are in keeping with government-approved dogma and, as such, sympathetic to the media corporate executives who work hand-in-glove with the government to spoon-feed what passes for “objective truth” to the American people. Jack Matlock still writes on Russian affairs, his articles providing a fresh, fact-based look at the reality of what is transpiring in Russia today. A public debate between he and McFaul would be most welcome by those who truly seek insight into what is happening in Russia (I consider myself a student of Ambassador Matlock, and if he is not able to throw down the gauntlet of debate, I am–consider the challenge made, Mr. Ambassador!) The American people are being poorly served by the new class of Russian experts to whom they have relegated all intellectual examination of current Russian affairs. Maybe when gasoline prices skyrocket, and inflation further shrinks their already burdened paycheck, the average American citizen might sit up and take notice. By then, however, it will be too late. Vladimir Putin’s speech of February 21, just like Mikhail Gorbachev’s address at the 19th All-Union Party Conference in June 1988, should be viewed and assessed with expert eyes, trained to discern fact-based intent and relevance. This happened back in 1988, and we were able to effectively manage the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is not happening today, and we may very well find ourselves neck deep in a conflict which we do not understand and for which we have no answer other than war. Reprinted with permission from RT. Why a war may be the only solution Americans can bring to this conflict Click on the headline to read the full story from |
Ron Paul
|