The Conquest of Europe By John Chuckman
26 September 2014
Russia’s President Putin is reported to have said in a conversation a while back that he could be in Kiev in two weeks.
In our press, this was reported as yet more evidence of aggressive intentions, but, given even a moment’s thought, that
is a patently false interpretation. It is also further evidence, as if more were needed, of the level of desperation
American propaganda around events in Ukraine has reached. It is almost as though America’s intelligence/news media
alliance started mimicking the almost forgotten Soviet apparatchiks of decades ago.
Yes, undoubtedly, the Russian military could be in Kiev in a couple of weeks. The very fact that they are not only shows
what nonsense we hear from America and the coup-installed government in Ukraine. Clearly, Putin’s words were to the
effect, “I wouldn’t have to tolerate the mess on our borders in Ukraine if I truly had aggressive intentions. For
goodness sakes, use your brains, I could be in Kiev in two weeks.”
This deliberate misinterpretation of a casual statement stands out for me as one of the most pathetic of many pathetic
things coming from Western politicians and media. And it is deliberate, for if it were the truth that the intelligence
service of a superpower could only interpret statements with such feeble understanding, the world would have entered a
new era of extreme danger, with idiots advising the commander who has his finger on the launch button. But I know
there’s no genuine danger of that. The interpretation is intended only to shape American public opinion, never very well
informed at the best of times. It’s a sound bite not intended to provide real information, just a momentary association
of something very negative with the name of Russia’s president, indeed one of a stream of sound bites broadcast recently
as though they meant something, as though they were news.
It is a classic method of propaganda, closely related to the technique in advertising of repeating a phrase or slogan or
jingle over and over, no matter how silly its actual content is on analysis, and like all the best propaganda, it starts
with a truth no matter how insignificant, incompletely reported, and removed from context. But there are two deeply
concerning aspects to what otherwise would just be garbage. First, it flows from the writers and editors of what is
supposed to be a free and open press, not advertising agencies trying to sell personal hygiene products, and thus
demonstrates once more how meaningless is the term, “free and open press.” When the American government has a point to
make, even a point that is dishonest or silly, in supporting some ill-conceived and dangerous policy, the entire press
instantly enlists to echo it across the land, offering saturation access to the public that could not be bought for
millions of dollars. At least in matters of foreign affairs, American journalism does not exist outside the childish
fantasies of young journalism students thinking they are going to dig for the truth and serve the right to know once
they graduate. You know, the bilge about the press being the fourth branch of government, the tribune of the people, and
keeping citizens informed.
But more worrying is why the government or the press in America wishes now to cast aspersions on one of the world’s most
important leaders? It has been more than three decades since Russia and the United States were commonly understood as
enemies, each capable of obliterating the other. Why would anyone want to look backward to that? And why would anyone
deliberately attack a man who has proved himself a sophisticated statesman, one whose words and behaviors show more
consistency than those of any of our Western leaders, and especially president Obama who has not spent a day of his time
in the White House without killing someone somewhere and surely has matched George Bush for lack of character.
Such cheap propaganda is symptomatic of aggressive intent. I believe the United States’ establishment is starting to
feel a new sense of its relative decline in the world, and it is desperate to shore things up by hurting new
competitors. The so-called pivot towards China is one of its tactics, and the expansion of NATO right against the face
of Russia is another. Both are provocative and risky. And I only wish the world could understand that the United States
is not that far from being a de facto bankrupt. It has no money for anything except by the unsound and unethical practice of printing more of it, knowing its
special position as a world reserve currency allows it to cheat holders of dollars around the entire planet with their
devaluation. And devalue it will, sooner or later, effectively leaving most of the bill for its stupid wars to be paid
by others.
Geography and many other factors, such as the distribution of energy and other natural resources, say that Russia and
Europe are over the long term destined to be strong, natural economic partners. But the United States has been Europe’s
partner – indeed, a good deal more than a mere partner since WWII - and it does not like the prospect of Russia in any
way displacing it. It is utterly backward thinking, but we are discussing brains driven by hormones here, not by logic
or good will. I recall at an energy conference I attended during the Reagan era meeting a representative from the
American State Department whose main message was that we had to stop Russian gas pipelines into Europe. As a believer in
people freely buying what they need from others freely selling what they have, I didn’t agree with him and said so, and
the people of Europe clearly weren’t convinced because many pipelines exist and many billions of cubic feet of gas flow.
The United States has taken every effort to get some return for its costly investment in a half-failed scheme to
destabilize Ukraine, and with each deft move of Russia, it has played the old “look out for the commies” theme, just
tarted up a bit so it doesn’t seem laughably out of date. The combination of the expansion of NATO plus scare-mongering
about Russia buys some time against what I believe is inevitable. And minds driven only by the hormonal impulse of being
dominant – full-spectrum dominance is the grotesque Washington insider expression - are incapable of clearly analyzing a situation, regardless of their
intelligence and technology and information resources. And they are certainly not capable of acting on behalf of the
great basic principles of rights and freedoms with which they sloppily wallpaper their every public statement. They are
blind to the chances they take, to the risks they expose all of us to, and to the damage they create for the happiness
and prosperity of millions of people.
America’s elaborate dirty tricks in Ukraine were intended to make Russia considerably less secure. You can almost
imagine the buzz-cut thugs at Langley having a good laugh over expense-account steaks and martinis when they first
thought they had succeeded, the laughter one expects from sociopathic American frat-boys who’ve just played a very dirty
joke on someone, as by drugging some poor girl’s drink at a party and raping her. Perhaps the intentions included a plan
ultimately to base missiles in Ukraine near Russia’s border, which would be a tremendously provocative act. Certainly it
was hoped that gradually Ukraine would become more western-oriented, although the prospect for a poor country like
Ukraine, one with shaky democratic credentials and not a good record in human rights, becoming in our lifetime full
members of Europe is simply not in the cards. After all, the U.S. keeps pushing for Israel to become part of major
European organizations, but that is too much even for some of America’s yes-men in Europe to accept.
Accusing Russia of looking out for what’s happening on her borders isn’t an accusation, it’s what all states do
everywhere. Goodness knows the case of Cuba should provide perspective and food for thought. The United States has
needlessly hurt that country for half a century with its embargo, many of the chief traditional products of Cuba having
been things to satisfy the American markets, such as sugar and tobacco. But an embargo alone was never enough to secure
the desired dominance. The United States invaded Cuba with a proxy army of Cuban refugees it trained, supplied, and
paid. It tried to assassinate Cuba’s leader, many, many times, and it periodically sent terrorist forces to blow or
shoot up things in Cuba. Ships in ports were shot up, hotels were attacked, and an airliner full of people was bombed.
When Cuba asked for the return of America’s base at Guantanamo, a base only leased from Cuba originally under duress,
the United States simply refused and still illegally occupies the land half a century later.
Of course, America was quite ready to hurl the world into nuclear war when it discovered that the Soviet Union had
placed missiles in Cuba as a way both of protecting its ally against new invasions and as increased leverage in dealing
with an often inflexible and aggressive United States. The missiles were provocative, but most thinking people felt they
were not adequate cause for nuclear war. Fortunately, President Kennedy was able to stand up against the terrible
pressures of the military-intelligence establishment and reach a negotiated settlement with Premier Khrushchev, an act
which many believe, including this author, later cost him his life in Dallas. Well, all that gives you just some idea of
how America responds to what it considers trouble or meddling, even a hundred miles from its border.
We hear the accusation that Russia arms the rebels in Ukraine, as well as the Assad government in Syria. My answer is
that America, which spends as much on its military as all others on the planet combined, is also the world’s largest
arms dealer as well as a ready covert supplier to groups anywhere it deems as serving its interests, whether extremist
groups, including ISIS, set up to destroy Syria or the Nazi-like groups affiliated with Ukraine’s new government and
employed in its coup. America runs a virtual conveyor belt of death machines and munitions to Israel to keep it well
supplied in upsetting peace throughout the Mideast and suppressing millions of people it took prisoner half a century
ago, a situation which has ranked in my view as the world’s most dangerous until now. A great deal of the aggression and
repression of Israel have to do with the fact that their best minds recognize the unfavorable situation into which they
are locked: no population growth versus high population growth for Arabs, the most highly subsidized national economy in
the world affording poorer prospects for most residents than their native places would, an interminable series of wars
and repressions and acts which the world sees as atrocities, early dreams all soured by a sense of no way out, and
perhaps a sense of having committed a colossal blunder in starting it all.
So in a very real sense, both America and Israel, unwilling or unable to deal with their tremendous problems in a
statesmanlike, realistic, and enduring way, dance a hideous danse macabre, with the entire world forced to watch in fear and horror.
When you compare Europe today to, say, Europe of fifty years ago, something more than a little disturbing becomes
apparent. Then, despite the height of the Cold War presumably giving reason for greater solidarity with America, there
were many independent voices in Europe. France had a consistently strong and decisive voice, and it was determined not
to be subservient to NATO. Britain, today perhaps the worst example of subservience to America in all things, also
showed independence at critical points, as when it refused to send troops to the holocaust of Vietnam despite great
pressure from President Johnson. Today, there are no independent voices, and despite the clear, long-term interests of
Europeans in having good relations with Russia, we see country after country acquiesce to America’s demands for
destructive sanctions. Even Holland, a country we think of as fair and tough-minded, issued an interim report on the
destruction of Malaysian Airlines’ MH17 which told us nothing we already didn’t know. That was clearly at the insistence
of the United States, unwilling to see its proxy government in Ukraine revealed for the violent and incompetent
operation that it is. NATO, an obsolete organization by any measure, has been expanded, serving primarily the interest
of continued American hegemony in Europe, and America pushes the idea of every member spending more on its military. The
United States also has Europeans committing to plainly idiotic purchases, as in buying the F-35, a plane one great
American fighter jet designer called the worst ever conceived. The plane cannot ever do what it was supposed to do
because it was foolishly commissioned to do a bit of almost everything, and the Pentagon wants as many others chipping
in to subsidize the immense cost of salvaging something from the wreck. Perhaps the F-35 is emblematic of a conquered
Europe, throwing away money on junk because America expects them to do so.