Some months ago, Phil Butler invited me to contribute to a book to tell the stories of some people who are active in countering the anti-Russian line that has become so predominant in the West. Having read it, I find a common thread among most of the contributors. And that is that some excessively one-sided coverage of events – the Sochi Olympics and Ukraine are often mentioned – triggered their scepticism. It couldn't possibly be that one-sided they thought and they started to look elsewhere for information. This swiftly made them realise that almost everything in the Western MSM about Russia (and many other topics) is lies. Once they understood that, there was no way back.
I recommend the book https://www.amazon.com/Putins-Praetorians-Confessions-Kremlin-Trolls-ebook/dp/B076SS88CP/
I suspect most readers and commenters on this site have been through a similar journey. Anyway, here is mine.
I started work for the Canadian Department of National Defence in 1977 in the Directorate of Land Operational Research of the Operational Research and Analysis Establishment. I participated in many training games in real time and research games in very slow time. The scenarios were always the same: we (Canada had a brigade group in West Germany) were defending against an attack by the Soviet/Warsaw Pact side. In those days NATO was a defensive organisation and, as we later found out, so was the other side: each was awaiting the other to attack. Which, come to think of it, is probably why we're all here today.
I enjoyed my six years, often as the only civilian in a sea of uniforms, but I realised that a history PhD stood no change of running the directorate so, when the slot opened, I contrived to switch to the Directorate of Strategic Analysis as the USSR guy. I should say straight off that I have never taken a university course on Russia or the USSR. And, in retrospect, I think that was fortunate because in much of the English-speaking world the field seems to be dominated by Balts, Poles or Ukrainians who hate Russia. So I avoided that "Russians are the enemy, whatever flag they fly" indoctrination: I always thought the Russians were just as much the victims of the ideology as any one else and am amused how the others have airbrushed their Bolsheviks out of their pictures just as determinedly as Stalin removed "unpersons" from his.
That was November 1984 and Chernenko was GenSek and, when he died in March 1985, Gorbachev succeeded. While I didn't think the USSR was all that healthy or successful an enterprise, I did expect it to last a lot longer and when Gorbachev started talking about glasnost and perestroyka I thought back to the 20th Party Congress, the Lieberman reforms, Andropov's reforms and didn't expect much.
In 1987 two things made me think again. I attended a Wilton Park conference (the first of many) attended by Dr Leonid Abalkin. He took the conference over and, with the patient interpretation of someone from the Embassy, talked for hours. The Soviet economy was a failure and couldn't be reformed. That was something different. Then, on the front page of Pravda, appeared a short essay with the title "A New Philosophy of Foreign Policy" by Yevgeniy Primakov. I pricked up my ears: a new philosophy? But surely good old Marxism-Leninism is valid for all times and places. As I read on, I realised that this was also something new: the author was bluntly saying that Soviet foreign policy had been a failure, it was ruining the country and creating enemies. These two were telling us that the USSR just didn't work. As Putin told Stone, "it was not efficient in its roots".
These things convinced me that real change was being attempted. Not just fiddling around at the edges but something that would end the whole Marxist-Leninist construct. As far as I was concerned, it had been the communist system that was our enemy and, if it was thrown off, we should be happy. Sometime around then I was interviewed for a job at NATO and the question was what, with all these changes, was NATO's future. I said it should become an alliance of the civilised countries against whatever dangers were out there: the present members of course, but also the USSR, Japan and so on.
Well, that didn't happen did it? I remember a very knowledgeable boss assuring me that NATO expansion was such a stupid idea that it would never happen. He was wrong too.
In 1814 the victors – Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria – sat down in Vienna, with France, to re-design the world. They were wise enough to understood that a settlement that excluded France wouldn't last. In 1919 this was forgotten and the settlement – and short-lived it was – excluded the loser. In 1945 Japan and Germany were included in the winners' circle. At the end of the Cold War, repeating the Versailles mistake, we excluded Russia. It was soon obvious, whatever meretricious platitudes stumbled from the lips of wooden-faced stooges, that NATO was an anti-Russia organisation of the "winners".
But I retained hope. I think my most reprinted piece has been "The Third Turn" of November 2010 and in it I argued that Russia had passed through two periods in the Western imagination: first as the Little Brother then as the Assertive Enemy but that we were now approaching a time in which it would be seen as a normal country.
Well, that didn't happen did it?
And so the great opportunity to integrate Russia into the winners' circle was thrown away.
For a long time I thought it was stupidity and ignorance. I knew the implacably hostile were out there: Brzezinski and the legions of "think" tanks (my website has a collection of anti-Russia quotations I've collected over the years) but I greatly underestimated their persistence. Stupidity and ignorance; you can argue with those (or hope to). But you can't argue with the anti-Russians. Russia wants to re-conquer the empire so it invaded Georgia. But it didn't hold on to it, did it? No but that's because we stopped it. Putin kills reporters. Name one. You know, whatshername. Provocative exercises on NATO's borders. But NATO keeps moving closer to Russia. Irrelevant, NATO's peaceful. Putin is the richest thief in the world. Says who? Everybody. Putin hacked the US election. How? Somehow.
I quoted Hanlan's razor a lot – "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". And, stupidity and ignorance there were (a favourite being John McCain's notion that the appropriate venue for a response to a Putin piece in the NYT was Pravda. And then he picked the wrong Pravda! (But he won't hate Russia or Putin any the less if he were told that, would he?) At some point I came to understand that malice was the real driver.
I suppose it grew on me bit by bit – all the stupidity converged on the same point and it never stopped; but real stupidity and ignorance don't work that way: people learn, however slowly. I think the change for me was Libya. I started out thinking stupidity but, as it piled up, it became clear that it was malice. I'd seen lies in the Kosovo war but it was Libya that convinced me that it wasn't just a few lies, it was all lies. (My guess is that Libya was an important development in Putin's view of NATO/US too.)
Naive perhaps but, for most of history stupidity has adequately explained things and malice is, after all, a species of stupidity.
So what's the point of writing? I'll never convince the Russia haters, and there's little chance of getting through to the stupid and ignorant. And most people aren't very interested anyway.
Well, this is where malice meets stupidity. If we consider the Project for a New American Century, the neocon game plan "to promote American global leadership", what do we see twenty years later? Brzezinski laid out the strategy in The Grand Chessboard at the same time. What today? Well, last year he had to admit that the "era" of US dominance, he was so confident of twenty years earlier, was over. There's no need to belabour the point: while the US by most measures is still the world's dominant power, its mighty military is defeated everywhere and doesn't realise it, its manufacturing capacity has been mostly outsourced to China, domestic politics and stability degenerate while we watch and there's opioids, spectacular debt levels, incarceration, infant mortality, недоговороспособны and on and on. Donald Trump was elected on the promise to Make America Great.... Again. Hardly the hyperpower to lead the globe is it?
The Twentieth Century was the "American Century" thanks to limitless manufacturing capacity allied to great inventiveness anchored on a stable political base. What is left of these three in 2017? Can America be made "great" again? And wars: wars everywhere and everywhere the same. And what other than malice has brought it to this state? Malice has become stupidity: the neocons, Brzezinskis, the Russia haters, the Exceptionalists, scheming "to promote American global leadership", have weakened the USA. Perhaps irreparably.
So, who's the audience today? The converted and people at the point when a little push can break their conditioning have always been there. But now there is a potentially huge audience for our efforts: the audience of the awakening.
Which brings me back to where I started. Except that it's the USA this time:
IT'S NOT WORKING
We're here and we're waiting for you: you've been lied to but that doesn't mean that everything is a lie.
Patrick
I'm a Millenial so my "real world" experience is limited. Having said that my experience is that somethings are up while others are down. My own personal standard of living is significantly higher than my parents had at my age.
However, I get that the median household income has stagnated for over a decade and wealth inequality is worse than in the 1920s. There are many explanations depending on your point of view. My bias is that fiat currency and growth in government, particularly the backstop of financial institutions, drove the financialization of the US economy and the concomitant growth of debt across all sectors. This has enabled "ponzi finance" as described by Hyman Minsky. It is this belief in no consequences that has financed all kinds of wasteful expenditures including the unending wars that the US is engaged in globally.
You make 3 points to distinguish the prior period when the US was "up".
1. Unlimited manufacturing capacity. I agree with you that the US voluntarily shipped its manufacturing base overseas. Ross Perot rang the bell in his quixotic presidential campaign and has been proven prescient. Bill Clinton and the establishment Democrats & GOP are responsible for this. It is clear they did this at the behest of Wall St as they have been the primary winners. Bob Rubin played a huge role in steering the Clinton Administration in this regard as Treasury Secretary and as the prior CEO at Goldman Sachs focused on the benefits to his group. I watched a video of Sir James Goldsmith debate Laura Andrea Tyson, Clinton's trade chief on the Charlie Rose show. I think it is a must watch for anyone who would like to understand the "free trade" debate in the 1980s & 90s.
https://youtu.be/eNCz4fjnHvY
2. Great inventiveness. Patrick, I would argue that "inventiveness" has actually accelerated in the US. From communications to autonomous systems to biotechnology and in several other areas the US has been at the forefront of innovation for the past several decades. The market capitalization of US technology companies created just in the last 2 decades is staggering.
3. Stable political system. I recently watched Ken Burns Vietnam documentary. Relative to the 60s we have a remarkably stable political environment. No doubt there is substantial angst but compared to then there is so much more social stability.
I agree with you that Putin is today the most mature and sophisticated national leader on the world stage. Russia needs to be very grateful that a leader of his ability strode on to their stage at such a crucial juncture. I watched his interviews with Oliver Stone several times and I came away very impressed.
I am a contrarian on China however. Xi continues to consolidate his authoritarian power by eliminating his rivals. This removes any chance for a more inclusive political environment in China. Couple this with the greatest expansion of credit in history which has exploded Chinese banking system assets as well as Shadow Banking assets. That last time an emerging great Asian power did this was Japan in the 1980s. Many don't realize that the Japanese banks were the largest by assets in that period. We have seen what happened there when the credit cycle reversed. Chinese expansion of credit over the last 2 decades has been on steroids relative to Japan in the 80s.
I want to conclude that IMO the election of Trump is a symptom of a change in attitudes of the American people. While Trump may be considered by some as an ignorant buffoon and divisive, this is not about him. Instead it is about the average American citizen no longer so easily bamboozled by the MSM and the status quo political and corporate establishment. In this regard the ability of people like you and Col. Lang to provide alternative viewpoints and analysis is shaping public opinion at the margins. And change begins at the margins.
Posted by: blue peacock | 29 October 2017 at 04:33 PM