American foreign policy support to Soviet dissidents provides the United States with strategic advantages relative to the Soviet Union. For this reason […] it is in the American national interest to continue support to the various dissident movements in the USSR.Michael Hall Maggard, Soviet Dissent and the American National Interest
It so happened that today I listened to and watched two videos and podcasts that were linked together. That link is the idea that the US was and is being governed by belligerent elites. That’s nothing new, but truth needs to be repeated.
In the latest episode of the Eyes Left podcast two American war veterans claim that the American military is preparing for a war with Venezuela. They claim that before every war the US started there has been a period of intensive brainwashing. The goal was to convince the public that it is right for the US to invade a foreign country. One of the most popular pretexts for US meddling in other countries internal affairs was the establishment or preservation of democracy.
This time the official media claim that the Venezuelan government falsified election results and in reality, an opposition candidate won. According to the hosts of the podcast, the polls show that 81 percent of Venezuelans don’t know that politician. This article in English (PDF) supports this claim. To me it sounds like the start of (yet another) revolution in Ukraine in 2014, when Western powers challenged the outcome of presidential elections and installed a puppet regime. Based on my talks with ordinary Ukrainians, that “new” president Poroshenko didn’t make Ukraine any better for the Ukrainians than Iushchenko (his predecessor, another Western-backed politician). Maybe Venezuela is the new Ukraine.
Another show I happened to watch on the same day was Lee Camp’s “Redacted tonight”.
Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?).
This means that a war seems more acceptable to the public, if it is framed as “NATO versus victim” war rather than “US against the victim”.
According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it.
Common nonsense is that the Russians wanted to invade the US and “free” world. To prevent them from doing that, the NATO was formed.
David Swanson rightfully calls the Russo-Soviet threat “unsubstantiated”, but does not provide evidence. Let me help him: In 1954, one year before the Warsaw Pact was created, the Soviets requested to join the NATO. That would have been the end of Cold War!
Western nations did not take that proposal seriously. Hence we may conclude that it was the West (led by the United States) who started the Cold War.
In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse.
So far, Russia has not retaliated NATO’s assaults. Either this enemy is weak, or not an enemy at all. Whatever option is true, Russian threat probably does not justify an annual budget of 1.395 billion Euros (source, PDF).
But the whole idea that the purpose of the NATO is protection against the Russians is ridiculous:
NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic.
Exactly how does fighting with
- Bosnia and Herzegovina,
- Pakistan, and
and partnering with Colombia protect NATO members from the Russians?
David Swanson further claims some believable facts that suggest Russia is a midget in terms of military strength compared to the US:
The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world.
Unfortunately, it is routine practice for Spiegel reporters to not even call us before writing.
The US officials obviously believe that before a German journalist expresses his or her opinion, they have to contact the US embassy and let it censor the materials.
It further requires an investigation of the magazine:
We ask that a thorough investigation be conducted by an outside, independent organization to determine exactly how Spiegel violated journalistic standards and how it can reform internal processes.
There are two statements in this text, which deserve attention. First, the US ambassador does not ask whether or not Der Spiegel violated journalistic standards. He asserts it as a fact. Since when is the US embassy authorized to judge the behavior of individual journalists or magazines?
Second, the ambassador says that some organization should tell Der Spiegel how exactly they have to reform their internal processes. In other words, how Der Spiegel can self-censor itself better. Wouldn’t that be a violation of freedom of press, one of the fundamental pillars of democracy?
The fundamental question is how such blatant anti-Americanism could be published without an editor questioning its accuracy and how much untold damage has been done by seven years of unchecked writing.
What struck me most was that the ambassador didn’t target a single publication or articles by a single journalist. What the ambassador is not content with, is the way Der Spiegel wrote about the US during the last seven years (2011–2018). He wants Der Spiegel to be more US-friendly, or else…
Also, he writes like anti-Americanism is a crime. You know what? If you are rational, you are bound to be anti-American. There are many reasons for a sane person to hate the US. One of them is that the US has always been destabilizing the world by meddling in other countries’ internal affairs (before and after the Cold War, so fighting against the fictitious Russian threat is not an excuse), hence making it more dangerous for all people.
Now the culture in the US has fallen so low that an official representative of the American state publicly requests a magazine in a foreign country (which is, by the way, an ally of the US) to either say what the American state wants or shut up. Can you be not anti-American as a result of this?