[Peace-discuss] Time for Trump to Talk to Putin

[David Green]

*- CounterPunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org
<https://www.counterpunch.org> -*Time for Trump to Talk to PutinPosted By Gary
Leupp On April 26, 2019 @ 1:46 am In articles 2015 | Comments Disabled
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/26/time-for-trump-to-talk-to-putin/print/#comments_controls>

Recall the stunned faces of all the cable news anchors on the eve of the
2016 election. How could Trump have won, when all the polls placed him so
far behind? Hillary Clinton quickly faulted James Comey, claiming his
announcement about more of her missing emails a week before the vote cost
her the race. And people suddenly discovered the “working class” (reviving
a term long avoided due to its Marxist associations, and the propogation of
the American myth of a vast middle class hovering over the
“poor”)—specifically the white working class portrayed as angry about
economic stagnation, immigration, and minority advances and receptive to
Trump’s buffoonery. But as stories leaked about “Russian interference” and
the lame-duck president commissioned a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
from U.S. intelligence agencies to examine that phenomenon, this
interference became the main explanation for Hillary’s loss.

Not Comey. Not ideologically backwards white workers. Russia. Putin.
Oligarchs.”Pro-Russian” Ukrainians.

Just as the Birthers had sought to de-legitimize Barack Obama (as foreign
born), many of Trump’s foes have sought to de-legitimize Trump (as a
foreign agent or stooge). No amount of redacted or unredacted material will
convince them that the president is innocent of collusion. They know he
loves Russia. Why, for godssakes, does he never condemn Vladimir Putin like
normal people are supposed to do?

The NIE document, released January 6, 2017, was actually a shoddy piece of
work, largely detailing the positive coverage of Trump in the Russian
press, and pointing to “fake news” posted by Russians in U.S. social media.
It was however seized upon as conclusive proof, supposedly presented by all
the U.S. intelligence agencies, of Russian electoral interference. Thus
Congress asked the Attorney General, Jeffrey Sessions, to appoint a special
prosecutor to investigate. But Sessions recused himself from oversight of
the investigation due to his admitted (innocent) meetings with Russians
during the campaign. Trump was of course outraged by this recusal,
considering it a personal betrayal. But the deputy attorney general Rod
Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller, a generally respected figure, as
Special Counsel and he worked quietly for two years. Trump growling about
the investigation itself seldom impugned Mueller’s integrity, and he was
generally praised by the press as methodical, competent, apolitical.

*The Mueller Report: the Russophobes’ Chagrin*

During this period, a steady stream of indictments having little if any to
do with election interference kept hope alive—hope that really damning
facts would eventually come out! The cable anchors waited with bated breath
for the release of the Mueller Report, although days in advance one heard
warnings that it might be a “letdown.” And then high hopes were dashed as
Attorney General William Barr published his four-page summary stating that
there was no conclusive evidence about Russian collusion.

Oh the dismay! The sorrow, sadness, regret, distress, chagrin! For Rachel
Maddow, experiencing her abyssmal ratings drop: O! the humiliation!

Up until this point the drive to remove Trump (probably by impeachment) has
drawn upon and exploited primitive Cold War-type Russophobia. (How many
times have we been told that Trump staffers succeeded in removing a
reference in the Republican platform to U.S. military aid to Ukraine, and
that this obviously shows slavish loyalty to Russia? This is a central
talking-point used by those arguing for collusion. We are supposed to
assume that giving lethal weapons to the neofascist-ridden Kiev government
was the natural, proper course for Washington, but it was thwarted by
Putin’s agents like Paul Manafort.)

As it happens, Trump has since supported military aid to Ukraine, and he
has taken many unfriendly actions towards Russia, producing the worst
period in Russo-U.S. relations in many decades. Having once (rationally)
questioned the continuing relevance of NATO, he has, as the alliance’s
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg notes, strengthened it and supported its
expansion. Whether this is because he is mercurial and indecisive, or
unusually susceptible to the blandishments of men in uniform, it doesn’t
inspire trust in the world. Too often Trump tweets something almost
immediately countered by the brass or the evil councilors Pompeo and Bolton.

*Now Trump Can Talk with Russia*

But now that Trump can claim the report has cleared him of Russian
collusion, he may have the political capital and freedom to reach out to
the other great nuclear power. He is capable of thinking outside of the
box. He has in the past (June 2018) even entertained the possibility of
recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea. (I doubt he will do that, but I
didn’t expect him to recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights
in defiance of international law.) He could at least offer Putin a freeze
on NATO expansion, which would be a very good thing for the world.

But Stoltenberg recently (March 25) reiterated NATO’s intention, first
announced in 2008 to include Georgia and Ukraine. 2008 was the year the
U.S. recognized Kosovo—wrenched from Serbia 1999 and now hosting a huge
NATO base—as an independent nation. This infuriated Russia, as Serbia’s
traditional ally. In response, Russia recognized the breakaway Georgian
republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia after a brief war on Georgia. (This
followed the death of Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia in a Georgian
attack, and was presented by Moscow to the world as a case of
self-defense.) Similarly Russia’s annexation of Crimea and assistance to
separatists in Ukraine followed the U.S.-backed coup in February 2011. The
addition of these countries to NATO would nearly complete the encirclement
of European Russia. Russia’s actions were designed in part to discourage
this.

Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian prime minister and hawk who supported the
U.S. war on Iraq, declared in Tblisi during joint Georgia-NATO drills that
Georgia would eventually join NATO and “Russia can’t do anything about it.”
He wants the world to believe it inevitable that the anti-Russian military
alliance will border southern Russia as it already borders it to the north
(in Estonia and Latvia). Just add Belarus and Ukraine and Russia will face
a nearly united European continent military bloc. One seldom hears it
explained why this would be helpful to anyone.

Among the religiously held premises of virtually all TV anchors are that
Russia is our adversary, challenging our interests around the world; NATO
is a good thing, guaranteeing stability and peace; capitalism is good; and
socialism is bad. And while once socialist Russia has thoroughly restored
capitalism, and NATO is no longer driven by anticommunism but mere
Russophobia, the lingering Cold War mentality is evident when, for example,
commentators refer to contemporary Russians as “Soviets.”

*Russophobia and the Attack on Socialism*

Meanwhile MSNBC’s Willie Geist asks guests: “Do you agree that capitalism
has been a progressive historical force?” and, “What is your view of your
party’s drift towards socialism?” He wants to instill pro-capitalist
orthodoxy, which means support for capitalist imperialism. (Notice how
outraged the Morning Joe hosts were when Trump announced a withdrawal of
troops from Syria, where they operate illegally, uninvited, on the grounds
that this would mean “betraying our allies.” Or how they respond to Trump’s
stated hope to withdraw from Afghanistan sooner rather than later.

Russophobia is part of a continuum of delusions, including the notion that
capitalism is the best of all possible systems, the idea that “regime
change” wars produce democracies, that U.S. troops fight and die “for our
freedoms,” and that the U.S. needs to station 200,000 troops in 150
countries to maintain world peace. It is a part of the virtual state
religion.

Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has provoked amazement and outrage for
stating, ‘There’s nothing wrong with taking information from the Russians”
in a CNN interview, “It depends on where it came from.” Giuliani is a
reactionary swine, but he’s spot-on here. For too long the assumption has
prevailed that contacts with Russians are more problematic than contacts
with (say) Germans, Uruguayans, Omanis, Fijiians or Canadians, constituting
threats that ought to automatically be reported to the FBI. If Giuliani is
demystifying (and de-vilifying) Russophobia, in order to defend his client,
well and good. Trump should be ousted, yes; but not in such a way as to
strengthen the Russophobes’ position in this imperialist country.

As Marx declared, the working people of the world have no country. We all
live in countries governed by ruling classes that try to unite their
peoples using patriotic nonsense, positing foreign threats to “us.” The
idea that NATO protects the North Atlantic and beyond from (a supposedly
expansive) Russia is one of those religious articles of faith that any CNN
talking head will aver. It doesn’t really make any sense.

A recent article by Ted Galen Carpenter in The National Interest (a journal
of the “realist” school of foreign policy) notes, “NATO was an institution
to deal with the Cold War; it is obsolete for the conditions of the
twenty-first century, and it has become a dangerous albatross around the
neck of the American republic.” Article V of the NATO charter requires all
member states to come to the aid of any attacked. Suppose that
Stoltenberg’s wish comes true and Georgia or Ukraine become NATO members,
and as such attack Russian forces to regain control of South Ossetia or the
Donbas region. Article V is invoked like the clauses in the secret treaties
were invoked as Europe descended into the First World War. This would be
the third such.

*Russia in the World*

Russia has sustained the secular regime of Syria, which is surely far
preferable to Daesh or al-Qaeda which would be blowing up the churches of
Damascus right now, and any Shiite mosques or synagogues, and crucifying
children had those thugs and their “moderate” U.S.-back allies swept to
power (as Hillary Clinton had hoped). It appears that many Syrians are
grateful to Russia, a longtime ally, for preventing a Libya-type disaster,
and that the Russians have shown a remarkable ability to coordinate with
dissimilar forces such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hizbollah
militiamen, Iraqi Shiite militias, Kurdish peshmergas, and even Turkey in
insuring the survival of the modern Syrian state. The U.S. was meanwhile
unable to recruit more than a handful of Syrian soldiers for its proxy war
intended to effect regime change.

Trump has on occasion indicated his preference that the Syrian matter be
handled by Russia (and even Iran). For him, Syria is no doubt one of those
“shithole countries” unworthy of much attention. (Good, may he leave it
alone, or at least coordinate with Russia in mopping up the last Daesh
militants.)

Russia has established intelligence cooperation with Iraq and Iran, in
connection with Syria. It was a partner with the U.S. in negotiating the
Iran Deal (which Trump of course has shamefully abandoned). It has a
constructive relationship with North Korea and could assist in a nuclear
deal with the DPRK, were the U.S. serious. I dare say Russian foreign
minister Sergey Lavrov is more respected in the world than bible toting
Mike Pompeo.

*The Arrogance of Secondary Sanctions*

The U.S. is about to arrogantly provoke great countries like China, India,
Japan, South Korea and Turkey by commanding them to end all trade with
Iran. Trump in his determination to fulfill a campaign promise has
sabotaged the most well-negotiated and positive international agreement in
many years, in essence demanding the Iranian mullahs capitulate to all U.S.
demands as the price of selling petroleum.

This is explained to the masses as the U.S.” lifting sanctions waivers” on
countries hitherto enjoying such grace from the U.S. as to be allowed to
buy oil from a country that all countries of the world (except for the
U.S., Israel and UAE) want to treat normally, not destroy. Russia cannot
presently and probably never would engage in such egregious, insulting
intimidation. This is a feature of “American Exceptionalism” that the world
increasingly mocks. The world is tired of it. When the Europeans actively
strategize to evade U.S. secondary sanctions, and warn that they threaten
the Atlantic Alliance, you know they (the Europeans) are getting serious
about defying this boorish Trump figure.

On its current course, Trump’s USA is headed towards more NATO expansion,
deadlock with North Korea, showdown with Iran, further deployments (some
secret) in Libya, Niger, Mali, Somalia, anywhere. It’s not much different
from Obama’s USA. It’s headed towards trouble in its relations with Europe,
in part because its imperialist wars are perceived as the main source of
the immigrant problem and in part because its insistence on anti-Russian
sanctions harm European business. In Latin America, despite recent
neofascist advances, peoples are sick and tired of Yanqui interventions and
will not tolerate one in Venezuela. Russia and China have both offered help
to Nicholas Maduro in resisting U.S. designs.

*Trump and Putin*

Vladimir Putin is perhaps a cruel, corrupt, hypocritical, filthy-rich,
former KGB colonel. It may be he has ordered the murder of journalists and
critics. He is also very sharp, articulate, cautious, and diplomatic,
reaching out to both Iran and Saudi Arabia (which the U.S. refuses to do).
He may well develop a rapport with the new Ukrainian prime minister,
Volodymir Zelensky, maybe arrange for real implementation of the Minsk
Accords (brokered by Russia and the OSCE, no thanks to the U.S.). He
probably has friendlier and more respectful relationships with Angela
Merkel and Emmanuel Macron than Trump does. He is not the obstacle to
improved U.S.-western relations.

Trump lacks Putin’s polish, trim figure, steely gaze, ability to speak
addressing complex topics while thinking on his feet. Pine though he might
for a Nobel Prize, he doesn’t cut the figure for it. He is a pathetic
buffoon, rather comparable to Boris Yeltsin (just without the alcohol), the
Russian leader loved by the U.S. in the 1990s as he presided over the
establishment of the oligarchic capitalist system that now prevails, whom
as you know was aided by U.S. interference in the 1996 Russian election.
But the Mueller Report establishes that Trump is not a Russian agent, and
“the Russians” did not determine the outcome of the U.S. election. The
accusations themselves fuel irrational international animosities in the
context of ongoing plans for NATO expansion, which are hardly subject to
debate in this fine free country.

If the Democrats, demanding strenuous investigations following up on the
Mueller Report—and his implied invitation to Congress to determine whether
Trump is guilty of “obstruction” of his investigation (which, again, found
no evidence for the main charge of collusion) may continue to hammer away
at Russia, and Trump’s alleged ties with Russia—they may simply become the
New Cold War Party, versus the party of potential rapprochement.

It would be tragic if this rare era—in which we’ve actually started to see
some debate about capitalism and socialism in the mainstream media, fueled
by the victories of “Democratic Socialists”—produces a party that while
advocating free college education, debt relief and universal health care,
and even perhaps loath to engage in more imperialist wars, views the world
through simplistic Russophobic lenses. Even now a single incident on the
Estonian border could lead to World War III as NATO members fulfill their
Charter obligations to collectively combat Russia.

“There’s nothing wrong with taking information from the Russians,” says
Giuliani. Well, there’s nothing wrong with talking with them either. Top
topic on the agenda should be dissolving NATO. Thirty-eight years after the
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, it’s high time.

Article printed from CounterPunch.org: *https://www.counterpunch.org
<https://www.counterpunch.org>*

URL to article:
*https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/26/time-for-trump-to-talk-to-putin/
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/26/time-for-trump-to-talk-to-putin/>*

Click here to print.
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/26/time-for-trump-to-talk-to-putin/print/#Print>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20190428/14963dde/attachment-0001.html>