The Cold War Ides of March US Cold Warriors escalate toward actual war with Russia.

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | The Cold War Ides of March US Cold Warriors escalate toward actual war with Russia.

Viewing 13 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #41743
      sonofspy777
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,156

      Heedless of the consequences, or perhaps welcoming them, America’s Cold Warriors and their media platforms have recently escalated their rhetoric against Russia, especially in March. Anyone who has lived through or studied the preceding forty-year Cold War will recognize the ominous echoes of its most dangerous periods, when actual war was on the horizon or a policy option. Here are only a few random but representative examples:

      — In a March 8 Washington Post opinion article, two American professors, neither with any apparent substantive knowledge of Russia or Cold War history, warned that the Kremlin is trying “to undermine our trust in the institutions that sustain a strong nation and a strong democracy. The media, science, academia and the electoral process are all regular targets.” Decades ago, J. Edgar Hoover, the policeman of that Cold War, said the same, indeed made it an operational doctrine.

      — Nor is the purported threat to America only. According to (retired) General David Petraeus and sitting Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, also in the Post on the following day, the “world is once again polarized between two competing visions for how to organize society.” For Putin’s Kremlin, “the existence of the United States’ rule-of-law world is intrinsically threatening.” This is an “intensifying worldwide struggle.” So much for those who dismissed post–Soviet Russia as merely a “regional” power, including former President Barack Obama, and for the myopic notion that a new Cold War was not possible.

      — But the preceding Cold War was driven by an intense ideological conflict between Soviet Communism and Western capitalism. Where is the ideological threat today, considering that post–Soviet Russia is also a capitalist country? In a perhaps unprecedented nearly 10,000-word manifesto from March 14 in the front news pages of (again) the Post, Robert Kagan provided the answer: “Today, authoritarianism has emerged as the great challenge facing the liberal democratic world—a profound ideological, as well as strategic, challenge.” That is, “authoritarianism” has replaced Soviet Communism in our times, with Russia again in the forefront.

       

      https://www.thenation.com/article/the-cold-war-ides-of-march/

      Bernie figured he could do more good ALIVE,
      than dead in a small plane "accident".
      I think he's right.

      Don't you?

    • #41863
      MistaP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,608

      Russia/leftism has been a “folk devil” longer than its predecessors: if you look at David Brion Davis’s old collection of conspiracy theories there’s nothing Russia isn’t blamed for that the Jews/Catholics/Freemasons weren’t accused of earlier

      even this has worried comments below it about “Cultural Marxism” left behind to infiltrate Murka even after the USSR itself is gone; so it’s not unexpected that righties start joking about helicopter rides–but now we have true-blue liberals and leftists letting this venom into their heads after all the millions it’s killed and the nuclear wars it’s almost started every decade

    • #41878
      RufusTFirefly
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,320

      Another good column from Mr. vanden Heuvel. Note how he singles out Tulsi for her courage on this topic.

      Frankly, I have a hunch that both Bernie and AOC know Russiagate is a chimera (when it comes to allegations of interfering with the election, that is, but not when we’re talking about the shady business dealings of Il Cheeto, who is as crooked as they come), but I think it is one of those myths that are perpetuated by people who don’t believe them but who fear they will be forever branded as kooks (or worse) for questioning the powerful conventional wisdom. There are other similarly untouchable subjects as I’m sure you can imagine.

      That said, Tulsi definitely deserves props for this. I suspect it’s a combination of her genuine courage and of the fact that she’s not considered a viable presidential candidate at this point. Should her profile increase significantly — I hope I’m wrong about this — I expect that she will walk back her comments. However, the fact that she’s been savaged by the corporate media indicates that she’s clearly touched a third rail and is on the right track.

       

      • #41901
        MistaP
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,608

        Sanders is part of a US LW tradition that emerged in the post-McCarthy, post-Budapest 60s: that meant separating from the USSR, even denouncing it at every turn–and why wouldn’t you, 1966-72? the Old Left was literally senile and Brezhnev had just crushed “socialism with a human face”: it was time for a new sort of leftism

        heck, Sanders’s sporadic Tweets on Mueller still read “17 agencies,” this is way on the edge of his radar

        plus Russiagate has laid quite a backfire into the DNC and Obama WH, and the bigger and longer and harder they pumped it up the harder it’ll be for its proponents to scurry away with “we never said that!” or “SDNY! Deutsche Bank!”; any attempt to turn Russia-baiting against Sanders will just discredit it

    • #41883
      RufusTFirefly
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,320

      Thanks @mistap . Good stuff, although frankly I’m a little disappointed that he didn’t just come out and say, “Hello there, I’m George Putnam, outsanding news reporter.”

    • #41895
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,752

      jews, Russians: the same (cause jews created communism).  freemasons created communism too, and they’re not religious.  (sarcasm alert)

      that’s what I’ve heard anyway.

      apparently ““authoritarianism” is the New Enemy.

      Please define.  Oh, wait, no definition = the better to put any country the US likes in that category.

      Personally, I don’t think its gonna fly.  From my POV, the US has just gotten more and more authoritarian since the 70s, if ‘authoritarian’ means rolling back the safety net and making it harder and harder for people to get by, + increasing red tape, surveillance, & run-arounds just for individuals to get the simplest things accomplished.  Not to mention increasing criminalization of just about everything but bankster fraudsters.

    • #41921
      RufusTFirefly
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,320

      “Perversion for Profit.” They came so close to the source of the problem but wound up walking right past it: profit.

      I’m always amused when our Founding Fathers are portrayed as pious and God fearing, even though many of the most admired among them were promiscuous Deists.

    • #41920
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,752

      @rufustfirefly

      Here he is:  “News at ten, see ya then.”

      In 1965, Putnam narrated a film titled Perversion for Profit, in which he warned viewers about magazines containing nudity and homosexual material, saying homosexuals were perverted and misfits, as well as implying they were child molesters.  The film was financed by Charles Keating” (Yes, the S&L Keating!  Small world, ain’t it?)

      Putnam was the host of Talk Back, a conservative radio show he hosted daily since leaving the television anchor chair in 1975. It was based at KIEV in Glendale, California (now KRLA) until 2001 and moved to KCAA 1050 in San Bernardino in 2002 and was distributed nationwide on the Cable Radio Network on CRN1. Although Putnam advocated many conservative viewpoints, he stated many times his status as a “lifelong Democrat” since his youthful admiration of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In addition to political talk Putnam interviewed many people that he knew in show business… He and Lucille Ball were very close friends…. Putnam is also credited with giving Blog reporter Matt Drudge his start.

      Putnam also published the weekly column “One Reporter’s Opinion” on the Web site NewsMax. His most recent focus was illegal immigration from Mexico.

      On September 12, 2008, Putnam died… in Chino, California. His death was announced to Putnam’s Newsmax.com readers. Upon Putnam’s passing, the <i>Los Angeles Times</i> recalled the words of former President Richard M. Nixon in a 1984 roast of Putnam given by KTTV to celebrate Putnam’s 50th anniversary in broadcasting: “Some people didn’t like what he said; some people liked what he said. But everybody listened to George Putnam. That is why he has been one of the most influential commentators of our times.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Putnam_(newsman)

    • #42066
      doh1304
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,193

      It’s all about domestic power. They’re transforming America (and ultimately the world) into a kleptomaniacal police state, and they are doing it by promoting myths so that we will unthinkingly consent, even encourage it. They do not consider the threat of war, because they consider war to be impossible – no country would ever resort to war as long as they have the threat of nuclear weapons, so they act with impunity. (No 19th century nation would put up with them)

      There are 2 dangers with this behavior: first, you will eventually go too far. There will come a point where nuclear winter, with the 7 billion deaths that will bring, is better than allowing the depredations to continue. Second, this hubris leads to a corruption and a laziness that will ultimately lead to collapse. In short, America is in a race – will we cause WW3 and destroy the Earth before we implode in fascism and apathy or revolution.

    • #42079
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,602

      It seems to me, that in a time in which climate change threatens all life on the planet… these war threats and actual wars are far beyond stupid.  It is one thing (so I have always believed) if you have to enter into a war to defend your Nation from an aggressor.  What do you do though… when your Nation IS the aggressor?  We have military bases surrounding Russia, at present.  If Putin so much as even farts loudly in our general direction, we’ll know about it.  So it seems to me that all of the current blame and angst for a Nation which we have at the point of a sword (metaphorically speaking) is rather absurd.  Sure, could be an ugly war – but it would be a short one.  Russia would be forced to either submit early on, or resort to nuclear weapons.  There is really not a third option – we would not (I don’t think) be stupid enough (and we don’t have the troops) for a land invasion.  Nor would Russia likely be able to land an army here.

      Right now it seems mostly a war of threats, bribes, blackmail, demands and exchanged insults… but it could escalate into something else.  Why?  What possible reason do we really have to antagonize Russia?  What possible reason do they really have to “hack our elections”, “interfere with our democracy”, etc.?  Even in better times, this would be stupid, but right now… right now it is insane.  With nearly every Democrat politician and most media icons already having named Russia as “guilty” as an “enemy”, with a good number of our Citizens swallowing it whole…

      I can tell you one way that I know Russia did NOT determine our election, not truly.  If they had – we would already be at war.  Our intelligence agencies would absolutely demand it – and they would get it, despite it’s stupidity.  No, this is a game – a game, perhaps, designed to ultimately lead up to that.  They want public support for a war with Russia before they start one.  They will not get it.  Not now.  Probably not ever.  Only if/when our “elected representatives” come to a conclusion regarding this will action be taken one way or another.

      We ought to be working together to solve the crisis of climate change.  We ought to be dismantling our nuclear weapons, not making more.  So many things we ought to be doing…. – and I do not think Russia is the enemy.  I do not think we can afford to have enemies unless we have no choice at all about it.  For all that is good and right, this bull shit needs to stop.  I don’t care if Trump and Putin end up sharing a cell, but enough with the threats and accusations.  Damn.

      Russia did not assault our infrastructure as Maddow warned that they might do.  We did not assault theirs – yet – so far as I know.  We are, however, engaged in a game of a chicken.  The US is almost certainly behind the power blackout in Venezuela – and who knows what else.

      I will support no candidate who does not favor peace and diplomacy.  I will support no one who does not understand the basic truth about sanctions – that they are counter-productive and hurt most deeply those who are the most vulnerable.  Enough is enough.

    • #42090
      peacecorps
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,028

      Resisting foreign influence on an election is not different here than when Putin accused the US of involvement in the 2012 Russian presidential election.

      He was not being a ‘Cold Warrior’ nor was he trying to start an ‘actual war’ with the US despite the protestations of many pro-American types who wished to portray Putin as such.

      Putin says U.S. stoked Russian protests

      Russian prime minister says US secretary of state gave a ‘signal’ to Kremlin opponents by criticising elections

      Expecting foreigners to stay out of one’s election is not a ‘war-like’ attitude. It is one shared by people in many countries.

      They are called 'human' rights not "if politicians do not feel threatened" rights. Many politicians see national sovereignty/security as more important because they protect their power and wealth. Human rights often do just the opposite.

      National issues (slavery/racism, income inequality, pandemics and pathetic health care, weak unions) are not solved with more states' rights. Global problems (climate change, migration, trade, war, pandemics) are not resolved with more national sovereignty.

      • #42102
        David the Gnome
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,602

        That’s what you got from my post? I dont really give a damn whether some Russians, government influenced or not, interfered by attempting to swing votes.  If I trusted our elections, I might be more concerned.

        It is already too late though, for Russia to threaten our democracy – there isnt one.  The oligarchs have been in charge for a long time already.

        In the grand scheme of things, this interference is irrelevant.  Maybe if we clean up our elections, enforce finance reform and such – then I’ll get pissed if foreign powers interfere.

        Right now though?  Billionaires interfere constantly, lobbyists, corporations, all with impunity.  Their interests are often international as well.

        It is about money… and greed.  Russia is not where our focus should be after 2016 and the years before.  We need to clean up our own mess, regardless of how they might have meddled.

        As for war – if it comes, Russiagate may end up being the attempt at justification.  True or not is quite beside the point.  Our media can – entirely legally – use propaganda as a weapon against the populace and the truth.  Our laws explicitly say so.

        • #42122
          peacecorps
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 2,028

          I did not mean it to be a reply to your post but to the OP. Did I mess that up?

          You are certainly entitled to your opinion about foreign interference in elections. I suspect that there are many Americans, Russians, Chinese and many other nationalities who do care about it.

          Unfortunately, IMHO, as long as we have governments based on nation-state sovereignty rather than on some form of global cooperation/integration, I suspect the selection of each nation-state government will be focused on the ‘national interest’ of each nation and its citizens rather than open to the influence of people in the rest of the world who perceive an interest in the outcome of another country’s election.

          I don’t think Putin was complaining about foreign (American) interference because it affected the outcome of that election. He won after all. His accusation was more on the principle that foreign interference was unacceptable, regardless of its decisiveness or irrelevance to the outcome.

          And caring about foreign influence does not mean one does not care about domestic corporate and 1% interference in the same elections. Bernie and many progressives oppose both – walking and chewing gum, you know.

          They are called 'human' rights not "if politicians do not feel threatened" rights. Many politicians see national sovereignty/security as more important because they protect their power and wealth. Human rights often do just the opposite.

          National issues (slavery/racism, income inequality, pandemics and pathetic health care, weak unions) are not solved with more states' rights. Global problems (climate change, migration, trade, war, pandemics) are not resolved with more national sovereignty.

      • #42248
        MistaP
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,608
    • #42108
      RobertFromNC
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 91

      I’m not really worried about a war with Russia. I just don’t think that our, nor Russia’s, leaders want to commit suicide. However, I do worry about the new cold war with Russia. It means that we will be putting a lot of $ into defense that could be going to other things.

    • #42151
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,602

      @peacecorps

      No, you didn’t, I jumped the gun there.  In any event… the idea of a global system of government is… interesting.  It might ultimately be what is needed in order to resolve climate change and other issues – but we probably shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for it.  I think that Russia is secondary – after our domestic issues.  If we can solve the corrupt influence of the 1% and others here…. and maybe stop interfering in the internal politics of other Nations, then maybe we can worry about Russia – and not sound completely ridiculous and hypocritical when we do.  Not that I am saying you are either – but it is like worrying about a rock in your shoe when your house is on fire.  I also definitely think (most) politicians and media icons are both ridiculous and hypocritical.


      @robertfromnc

      In a saner era, I might agree with you.  Hard to say what our government will do – particularly given it’s present leadership.  One reason I was extremely reluctant to vote for Clinton (though, in the end, I did – lesser evilism bull shit) was her antagonism of Russia.  The way she spoke of no fly zones over Syria without batting an eye…

      Who ever ends up winning in 2020 – and I am betting on Bernie, but who ever it may be… we cannot afford a war hawk, or a chicken hawk, or a cold war warrior.  We badly need a good international policy – and someone who is opposed to our policy of regime change and interventionism.  That would be enough to cut the military budget, right there, maybe worry more about fixing stuff at home… like our roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, power infrastructure… there is so much that needs to be done.

      All it would take for war with Russia is for some mishap or accident to be mistaken for an actual attack.  Or for some idiot to decide that it really is time to put a no fly zone over Syria or other territory.  No reason for it….. any of it.  Frankly, if we are going to be involved in Syria at all, we should be working WITH the Russians.

      I am more worried though, about Venezuela…at least at the moment.

    • #42169
      Junker
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 174

      The Russians are coming….with their folk music and other deviousness.

       

    • #42993
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,752

      Just reading in your link (“jewish bolshevism”) that it was supposedly the white Russians who promulgated the “Protocols”

      Ayn Rand was from a white Russian family…

      (feeble joke)

      Daniel Pipes said that “primarily through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Whites spread these charges to an international audience.”  James Webb wrote that it is rare to find an antisemitic source after 1917 that “does not stand in debt to the White Russian analysis of the Revolution.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

Viewing 13 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.