Stop the Anti-Putinism and Anti-Russianism NOW
March 28, 2018
Why in the world is the U.S. bloc so antagonistic to a country and a leader who’s clearly very similar in his goals and his means to achieve them for his country as those in the West? The West obviously should engage Russia, not isolate her. We shouldn’t let the differences in the details blind us to the massive similarities between the West and Russia. We are much more alike than the anti-Putin and anti-Russia contingent says. They are obscuring the big picture of similarity.
Putin is already Westernized. Russia is already Westernizing. If the CIA does not know this, then they know nothing. Mere differences of detail separate Russian ways from Western ways. Whatever friction there exists between the U.S. bloc and Russia is in the nature of a family squabble, but one in which the family members are heavily armed and may kill one another.
The proof? Putin’s address of March 1, 2018 could have been delivered in any Western country by any Western leader. This long speech is chock full of social democracy. Naturally, the details differ from what a Lyndon Baines Johnson speech used to contain, but the emphasis and motivations are similar. Each identifies social and economic problems or challenges, and each intends to use government to overcome them by its powers and leadership. The word “infrastructure” appears 22 times. Poverty appears 4 times. Development appears 42 times. People appears 67 times. Military appears 18 times and defence 35 times. The speech is a typical laundry list like those we hear in any State of the Union address.
The words God and Christianity do not appear at all in this speech. If Putin were truly to break away from the materialistic and utilitarian framework that he shares with the West’s democracies, it would be in the area of religion and values. Sometimes he speaks in this vein, but in this speech he in no way acts as a leader of a people with a distinct religious background and feeling whose destiny he’s helping to shape by reference to their shared religious beliefs.
Putin has occasionally used the religious theme when it suited a political purpose, as in a speech explaining the importance of Crimea to Russia. Typically, he does not use the religious appeal, and that’s a Western political trait as well. Western politicians do not usually single out one religion, although they often invoke “God”. This begs all the important questions since there are so many conflicting versions of God. The result is that it’s mostly lip service. Religious beliefs today rarely prevent politicians from being social democrats and believing in big government. Like our politicians, Putin invokes God and is seen as a believer, but he too basically behaves as if he is a materialist and atheist.
Neocon Anne Applebaum is completely wrong when she says “Russia is an anti-Western power with a different, darker vision of global politics.” Russia is a pro-Russia power, and Putin’s laundry list of goals is like many Western countries. Its international vision is multi-polar, because it wants respect. The unipolar vision of the U.S. is the darker vision. It hasn’t been Russia starting war after war. Garry Kasparov is way, way off to think that Putin is a nascent Hitler, when he says “A dictator grows into a monster when he is not confronted at an early stage…And unlike Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Putin has nuclear weapons.” This is hatred and fear-mongering, pure and simple. Putin didn’t write “Mein Kampf”, build Russia into an armed camp, or turn the country into a totalitarian nightmare.
The world was shocked in 1914 because two warring blocs appeared, each of which was led by a nation with similar civilizations. Not only that, three cousins headed their countries: King George V of Great Britain, Czar Nicholas II of Russia and Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany. Today, even though it is as plain as day that the western bloc and Russia share the same kinds of material aspirations, the same kind of social democratic operations of governments, the same kind of materialism, the same technological environment, and the same kind of weapons of mass destruction, we once again have a family squabble being blown up into potential causes of war. Were it a one-time temper tantrum, we would not worry; but the frictions are hardening into irrationality.
There is a desire among many to heighten the confrontation still more. This desire is shown by Theresa May, of late. When the desire to play tough and act tough already is present and prevails, it is always easy to find some provocation or invent one. That’s what the Skripal incident shows. Prime Minister May already wanted to confront Russia. All of this anti-Putin and anti-Russian hatred, misperception, mistrust, and hostility must be stopped and it must be reversed now.
Chappaquiddick