It’s about time there was objective evaluation of where Russia means to carry on the world stage. There’s no point in continuing confrontation.
The U.S.-NATO military workout Sea Breeze ended on July 19 after two weeks in which 30 ships from 14 NATO nations and their “Boosted Opportunities Partners” (EOP), consisting of Ukraine, carried out fight manoeuvres particularly directed versus Russia, and NATO was open about the truth that “NATO has actually increased its presence in the Black Sea”. This example of aggressive conflict was the most recent in a series of U.S.-NATO operations along Russia’s borders, which are explained officially as “NATO’s Eastern Flank”.
NATO has established an “Boosted Forward Presence” in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland while developing “a tailored forward existence in the Black Sea region” and the message of hostility might not be clearer. It is therefore not surprising that Russia has developed a new deterrent weapon. It was announced on July 19 that a Tsirkon (Zircon) hypersonic cruise missile was successfully evaluated from the navy frigate Admiral Gorshkov in the White Sea, and there was an instant outburst of protest by NATO which released a statement claiming that Russia had produced “a greater danger of escalation and miscalculation” due to the fact that its “brand-new hypersonic missiles are extremely destabilizing and pose significant risks to security and stability across the Euro-Atlantic area.” It gets away the notification of NATO and the Washington administration that if there had not been the remorseless– and broadening– build-up of U.S.-NATO-EOP troops, battle ships, electronic warfare systems and strike airplane on the “Eastern Flank” there would have been no requirement for Russia to develop counter-measures needing expertise and money that the Russian federal government would have preferred to commit to expanding trade and enhancing domestic conditions.
The U.S.-NATO military build-up has actually been matched by a project of mental warfare focused on putting Russia under suspicion for any number of supposed offenses of worldwide practices, the current of which was explained in the UK’s Guardian paper on July 17, headlined “Kremlin documents appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White Home”. The report was composed by journalist Luke Harding who claims he based it on highly-classified Russian language files which were taken a look at by unknown “independent experts” whose verdict was that they “appeared” to be “genuine.” The interesting thing, nevertheless, is that the story was not picked up by any other of the mainstream media (Fox News discussed it; see below), not even the Washington Post, which, although generally an excellent publication, is anti-Russian to the point that doubt can be cast on its longtime credibility for objectivity and even-handedness.
It can not be said that the Guardian is intrinsically anti-Russian, and indeed it is stabilized in its method to worldwide affairs, but its anti-Russian report was so loaded with qualifiers (“appears … recommends … apparent … appears”) that publication in such a reputable paper is disturbing. It evokes the Zinoviev Letter of a century ago, which the Financial Times describes as “an inflammatory file supposedly sent to the British Communist party in September 1924 by Grigory Zinoviev, head of the Comintern, the Soviet organ that promoted around the world transformation by means of propaganda and subversion.” The FT notes that Trotsky’s remark at the time was “How a file so ridiculous, so politically worthless, a file which cries aloud that it is a forgery, could become the focus of attention of the leading political parties of the earliest civilised nation worldwide, a country of centuries of world supremacy and of a parliamentary program– that is what is really incomprehensible.”
The Guardian itself ran a story on the Zinoviev Letter in 1999, reporting an official federal government examination into the scandal. This tape-recorded that the letter, sent out to the Daily Mail newspaper to try to affect an impending basic election, was forged and “probably dripped by MI6 or MI5 officers.” The Mail’s headings included “Civil War Plot by Socialists’ Masters: Moscow Orders To Our Reds; Great Plot Revealed.”
The Guardian’s headings, such as “Papers appear to reveal Putin’s plot to put Trump in White Home”, are compelling– but when Fox News, of all media outlets, commented that the paper “stopped short of saying [the files] were absolutely genuine”, then it is evident that the Guardian has a distinct trustworthiness problem. Fox went on to say that the files “seem written to match a liberal dream” and that “readers are left to wonder what is true, what is overstated and what is malarkey …”
The anti-Russia malarkey organization has been flourishing, and one of its most unsavoury manifestations has been the U.S. project to damage the contract in between Germany and Russia on the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which is so important to Europe (and has at last been approved, thanks to Chancellor Merkel). This major task is over 95 percent complete, but was stalled in its lasts by sanctions imposed by President Trump (which action completely contradicts the contention of the U.S. media and different agencies that Trump was pro-Russia).
Nord Stream is created to “transport natural gas into the European Union to boost security of supply, assistance climate goals and enhance the internal energy market. The EU’s domestic gas production is in fast decline. To meet need, the EU requires reliable, affordable and sustainable new gas products.” It might not be clearer that the job was of great advantage– however not directly to the United States, which is why politicians in Washington were so identified to have it scuttled.
The BBC reported at the time of the Trump sanctions that “The almost $11 bn (₤ 8.4 bn) Nord Stream 2 job has exasperated the U.S., with both Republican and Democratic legislators opposing it. The Trump administration fears the pipeline will tighten up Russia’s grip over Europe’s energy supply and lower its own share of the profitable European market for American liquefied natural gas (emphasis included). President Trump has said the 1,225 km (760-mile) pipeline, owned by Gazprom, could turn Germany into a ‘captive of Russia’.”
The genuine reason for U.S. hostility to Nord Stream lies outside Europe. Even the Washington Post needed to admit that in spite of all the malarkey about an expected Russian hazard, “it’s also clear that the U.S. has actually been keen to increase its own sales to Europe of what it calls ‘flexibility gas.’ The Washington authorities were devoted for many years to stopping the gas link, or at least putting substantial hurdles in its way.” All of it boils down to lost earnings for Washington. No goal expert would imagine that Russia, after investing billions of dollars and standing to make routine, surefire returns from its huge financial investment, would turn off materials, but the intensity of anti-Russia feeling in the U.S. Congress is such that neutrality falls prey to ultra-nationalistic bombast– and the profit motive.
Russia’s recently-published National Security Technique is explained by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace as a valuable file, and the Endowment summarize the Western technique by writing that “Getting Russia right– assessing its capabilities and objectives, the long-term drivers of its policy and threat perceptions, as well as its accomplishments– is necessary due to the fact that the option of misreading them is a recipe for wasted resources, distorted nationwide concerns, and increased threat of confrontation.”
Continuing to target Russia is a grave error on the part of the Washington-London Axis, and it’s about time there was unbiased evaluation of where Russia means to proceed the world phase. There’s no point in continuing fight.