Zero mainstream coverage today of the foiled, U.S. backed plot to assassinate Belarus president Lukashenko

In his last book “War with Russia?” my friend and colleague Steve Cohen wrote about the flagrant censorship of news being carried on by The New York Times in support of its Russia-bashing editorial policies. Said Cohen, the newspaper’s century old slogan of “All the News That’s Fit to Print” has been turned into “All the News that Fits” when it comes to coverage of Russia.

But the problem goes far deeper than the professional malpractice of one leading newspaper in America. The censorship of news carried by mainstream media by U.S. authorities covers not only the domestic press but also the mainstream of Allied countries.  News blackouts are imposed when something ugly arises implicating the United States in violation of international norms of state behavior for which the State Department has no ready explanation or white wash.

This very situation seems to have arisen over the weekend, when news broke in Moscow over the arrest of two conspirators plotting a coup d’état in Minsk, to be carried out by the Belarus armed forces tentatively during the 9 May parade celebrating victory over fascist Germany in the Second World War.

Other leading English-speaking papers such as The Guardian and The Financial Times have front page reports on Alexei Navalny’s near death condition in a prison camp but not a word about Belarus. Ditto the Frankfurter Allgemeine and Le Figaro.  Curious, n’est-ce pas? Warum?  Let’s look into the story in its full dimension.

Last night’s News of the Week program hosted by Dimitry Kiselyov, Russia’s top manager of state news programming,  began with a 20 minute report on the extraordinary arrest of two conspirators plotting armed rebellion entailing the murder of Lukashenko and his family, abolition of the post of President, installation of a Committee of Concord such as previously had been headed by the opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya.

But these were not empty allegations. The arrests followed on a meeting by the two conspirators with Belarus military officers held in a downtown Moscow restaurant which was filmed from start to finish by the Russian state security agency, the FSB.  Lengthy segments of recordings from their meeting and discussion of their treasonous plans were aired on the Kiselyov program. Moreover, the accused are not some unknown pawns such as the British presented to the world press when they released their accusations against Russia over the Skripal poisoning.  No, one of the two arrested was the former press secretary of Lukashenko, a person who would have had all the contacts necessary to organize such a rebellion. The other plotter has dual US-Belarus citizenship and was well known as a fighter against Lukashenko’s rule.

The two were turned over to the Belarus KGB for interrogation in Minsk.  Surely further information about the links of the plotters to Ukraine, to Poland and to the United States will come out in the next few days.

What we have here is “very likely” (to use current Anglo-American political jargon) involvement of the United States in yet another regime change operation.  The revolution from below in Belarus led by Tikhanovskaya with support from Poland and Lithuania failed. The anti-Lukashenko street demonstrations led to nothing. And now Plan B, a putsch from above, was being organized to achieve the objective of removing Lukashenko both politically and physically. We have not seen such openly murderous plans with “likely” U.S. backing since John Kennedy’s days when the assassination of Fidel Castro was the hot game in D.C.

On the same “very likely” logic, I permit myself to take this all back to the door of the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Policy designate Victoria Nuland.  The links to Warsaw and Kiev that appear present are all in line with what she was doing to precipitate the Maidan in 2013 and violent overthrow of the sitting President in Kiev amidst attempts to murder him as he made his escape to Russian territory in February 2014.

From all of the foregoing, it looks as though U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s pledge several weeks ago that the US would no longer pursue “orange revolutions” was either an out and out lie or made without his knowing that control of foreign policy no longer is in his hands, but is being carried out by his nominal subordinate, Mme Nuland.  No wonder that the U.S. has ordered “stop the presses” on this story until it can put together some plausible response.

In the meantime, the same news program delivered the Kremlin’s response to the Czech action over the weekend to expel 18 diplomats from the Russian embassy in Prague over allegations that Russia was involved in blowing up an arms depot near the capital back in 2014, an event which previously the Czech authorities had blamed on the owners-managers of the depot.  Per the Kremlin, these new and absurd Czech charges of Russia’s nefarious activities were agreed with Washington to direct attention away from the pending story about U.S. involvement in plans to murder the Belarus head of state.

Are we headed to World War III?  If the war machinery today were like what existed in August 1914, the answer would be unquestionably yes.  It is our good fortune that until someone on either side of the East-West divide pushes the Red Button, there are ways back from the abyss. However, we are still heading in the wrong direction, towards the abyss, and the United States is the prime mover.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2021 

Bombast from Washington: Joe Biden’s Russia sanctions

Yesterday, shortly after the White House issued its four-page Fact Sheet on the sanctions about to be imposed on Russia (“Imposing Costs for Harmful Foreign Activities by the Russian Government”), I was invited by RT International in Moscow to be a “first responder” and provide an analytical comment at the top of their 16.00 news hour program.

I did this with considerable pleasure since before we went on air I was tossed an opening question that played into my game perfectly:

“The new sanctions come despite Washington saying it wants a ‘stable relationship’ with Russia…Are sanctions really a good tool to reach such a goal?”

As I pointed out, the question assumes that ‘stable relationship’ means a ‘good’ relationship and that is a fallacy. The American notion of a ‘stable relationship’ is one that they control unilaterally.

Question two was another soft ball pitch:

“Just days ago Joe Biden called Russian president Vladimir Putin – offering him a personal meeting. Why are we seeing such a swing in sentiment now?

Here I must admit that my first thoughts which I delivered on air were wrong. I saw the imposition of sanctions now as indicative of warfare within the Biden Administration between doves and hawks.  No, the situation is more complicated as I will try to explain here..

Yes, one might conclude there is chaos in Washington decision making, with the advocates of caution in dealing with Russia, who no doubt urged upon the American President an outreach to Russia and a summit being undercut by the authors of the sanctions –the  enemies of Russia camp in the State Department, where Victoria Nuland, once again calls the shots as Under Secretary for Policy, and the Treasury working group on Russia sanctions which have stayed in place since before the Trump administration was an active contributor of content.

Were the sanctions intended to sabotage the call for a summit meeting? As a practical matter the sanctions will at a minimum postpone the setting of any date for a summit, and quite possibly end in the cancellation of any meeting.  But I doubt this was the intent of the sanctions’ sponsors or of Biden himself. Rather it is a demonstration of the utterly ignorant and self-focused way that U.S. politicians on both sides of the aisle propose to deal with the world.

U.S. policy is based on scenarios written by political scientists with the intellectual capacity and life experience of college sophomores. Victoria Nuland, is an outstanding case. In a recently issued article deconstructing the writings of Nuland and her Neocon ideologist husband Robert Kagan, my Canadian colleague Patrick Armstrong rightly compared these highly dangerous fools in high places with the idiot savants described by Jonathan Swift in the chapter on Laputa in Gulliver’s Travels.

The introduction of new and seemingly tough sanctions just after President Putin was invited to a summit meeting was surely intended to serve a specific US domestic purpose, namely to show that, unlike Donald Trump, Joe Biden would meet with Vladimir Putin “from a position of strength,” the only negotiating stance that America’s anti-Russian political class accepts as legitimate.

Let us define this “position of strength” notion in very contemporary and instantly understandable words: it means the U.S. knee on the neck of a supine Russia. “I can’t breathe” is the only response that these militants want to hear from the Russians before they sit down and talk about the way forward in mutual relations.

This is precisely what Russia under Vladimir Putin resists tooth and nail, saying that Russia will negotiate only under conditions of mutual respect and equal treatment of national interests.

Close inspection of the sanctions reveals that there is nothing in them to elicit an “I can’t breathe” response. An article on the front page of today’s Financial Times tells us all we need to know about the practical effect of the single most impressive punishment to be applied to Russia, the prohibition on U.S. financial institutions participating in primary auctions of Russian state ruble denominated bonds: “Western investors brush off US bond sanctions on Russia.”  Indeed, the bonds will now be sold to Russian state banks like VTB who will then resell them to the very same Western banks on the secondary market, which is not sanctioned and which investors do not expect to be sanctioned in future now that the Biden bag of tricks has been emptied and all the listed malicious doings of Russia have been punished. Other notable sanctions such as the expulsion of 10 Russian diplomats will surely be followed by the expulsion of 10 or more American diplomats by the Russians. End of story.

All of the other verbiage in the Presidential “Fact Sheet” and in particular the litany of accusations of wrongdoing in many different areas can only serve to vilify Russia and spoil the atmosphere.

The sanctions were bombast, which Google Search defines as “high-sounding language with little meaning, used to impress people.”  The ‘free world’ and ‘democratic values’ defenders who pack the Biden administration are big talkers and cowardly actors.

The Russians understand that very well, even if it eludes nearly all American commentators.  The Russians point to the decision taken by the U.S. on Tuesday NOT to send its two warships into the Black Sea, as had been previously announced.  Instead the vessels turned back before entering the Dardanelles and were sent to Cyprus to do some unspecified repair work.

The decision on the warships, whose mission in the Black Sea could only be described as highly provocative, came at the same time that Biden issued his outreach to Putin for a summit. There can be little doubt that both measures were taken under advice of the Pentagon who have the clearest and least ideologically compromised understanding of Russian power and intentions among anyone in the U.S. capital.  They knew that with 80,000 troops on the ground at the Ukrainian border versus the 40,000 troops that the US is mobilizing along the Western frontiers of Russia to conduct its pending military exercises, the outcome of any military confrontation with Mr. Putin in coming days would be devastating for the U.S. military.  They knew that the Russians could and would, if necessary, neutralize the two US Navy vessels in a matter of minutes by electronic warfare weaponry.

What are the lessons to be learned from this week’s otherwise confusing developments in U.S.-Russian relations?

First, that the political, meaning diplomatic, channels between the countries are virtually useless at present. On the U.S. side they are manned by determined fools, among whom I include our brilliantly dressed and superficially eloquent Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. In response to those who claim, rightly, that Blinken is highly intelligent, I say “stupid is as stupid does” and in his exercise of office, particularly in his recent conduct with a top-level Chinese delegation, Blinken showed himself to be dumb as they come. His subordinates are no better.

If Russia were to follow its interests to the logical conclusion, they would now recall the rest of their staff at their Washington Embassy and order the U.S. embassy in Moscow to shut down.  Daily communications between Russian General Gerasimov and his counterparts in the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington are the best way to keep the peace.  These chaps alone can both walk and chew gum. These chaps alone understand who is who and what is what in projection of military force.

Second, there is absolutely no sense to convene a U.S.-Russia summit at present or in the foreseeable future. It will resolve nothing.

Third, the question of Ukraine has willy-nilly become the single biggest issue in U.S.-Russian relations. It may well be that it can be solved only by force of arms, given the obtuseness of both American political elites and of Ukrainian President Zelenski’s entourage. They still push for recapture of the Crimea. They still push for Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Both ambitions are inimical to Russian national security and are sufficient reason for Russia to go to war.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2021

Post Script –

The Russian counter measures have now been announced and they appear to be even more severe than what Biden imposed on them. While they have not ordered the US Embassy to close, they have done far more than expel a matching number of American diplomats. They have revoked a 1992 agreement with the United States on free movement of their diplomats around the Russian Federation; they will now be limited to 25 miles, as in the days of the Soviet Union. They are now prohibiting the U.S. diplomatic missions to hire Russians or third country nationals to work for them; this will immediately hobble the activities of the diplomatic missions in every dimension.

At the same time, the Russians are ordering the closing of US Government sponsored NGOs and foundations, which they say are conducting subversive activities on Russian soil, read “meddling.” And they have issued a list of former and present U.S. government officials who will be barred entry to the RF. These include the U.S. Attorney General, the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies and notorious Russia-bashers Susan Rice and John Bolton. Moreover, they have publicly recommended that the U.S. ambassador to Russia go home for extended consultations, effectively decapitating the embassy and winding down its work.

The very severity of the Russian response suggests to me that they have cleared the decks for a possible summit on equal footing. Furthermore,to avoid any confusion in Washington about negotiations proceeding from a “position of strength” the Russian Ministry of Defense has announced today the transfer of Army units from the Northern Caucasus to Crimea for very extensive military training exercises, further expanding the Russian military pressure on Ukraine and its backers in Washington.

Cold War Fever in Brussels

In recent months it has not been just Covid that raised the temperature in Europe’s hotheads: Cold War fever has set in among the Brussels leadership, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel rallying the troops against public enemy number one, the Russian Federation.

In the United States, ignorance about and disinterest in the world at large influences the judgment of the Opposition just as it shapes the policies of those in power. The prevailing assumption among the tiny minority of public critics of US foreign policy is that the United States calls all the shots, that the positions on any given international issue taken by our European allies, for example, are dictated from Washington or, if developed on their own, serve the single purpose of gaining favor with Washington and bolstering the “special relationship” held by London or Paris or Berlin.

If only things were that simple.  In this essay I argue why they are not. Nor have they been that simple for many years now. As I look over my writings going back a decade that I published in a succession of “non-conformist” books, I was calling out the home grown nature of Neoconservatism in Europe which arose in parallel with but independent from the movement in States that gave us the horrors of the Iraqi invasion and the viciously anti-Russian policies culminating in the Maidan in Ukraine, with the change of geopolitical course in Kiev as wished by the US, namely inimical to Russia.

 Intellectual leaders like Sweden’s Carl Bildt and Belgium’s Guy Verhofstadt were the equals of their buddy Robert Kagan in Washington as creators of Neocon ideology and they were its implementers from positions of power within Europe.

Today I see a similar parallelism in the roll-out of Cold War policies in the USA under Biden and in Europe under von der Leyen.

Why is this relevant to day-to-day developments?  Because the latest appeals by my fellow thinkers in the USA addressed to Joe Biden and urging him to step back and reflect on the possible consequences of aiding and abetting a military strike by Kiev against the Donbass at present will not achieve much if Brussels continues on its merry way as arsonist.  You may have no doubts that today Brussels is lighting delusional fires of revenge in Zelensky and his entourage, encouraging what would be a suicidal strike against Russia’s vital national interests in the belief that NATO will come to his rescue. It won’t.

Now why would von der Leyen espouse Cold War ideology and present Russia as Europe’s enemy number one?

Let us just consider for a moment whence she came: von der Leyen had been serving in German Chancellor Merkel’s cabinet as Minister of Defense. She was deeply involved in NATO affairs, and within NATO the “Russians did it!” mantra has been cynically exploited by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to rally members to his side even when Donald Trump’s verbal blows put the alliance in jeopardy.

For von der Leyen, the same rallying Russia-bashing talk helps her to address specific challenges to the Union at this moment:  the problem of relations with Britain post-Brexit and the problem of taming Poland and preventing the formation of a socially conservative, pro-national sovereignty and anti-Brussels bloc between Poland, Hungary and Italy.

When it was within the EU, Britain was the loudest voice denouncing Russia at every turn except for the New Member States from the former Soviet bloc. Now that the EU’s relations with Britain are strained since the finalization of Brexit, a call to arms against Russia can bring Britain back into the European fold.  Meanwhile, the formation of a socially conservative bloc of Hungary and Poland, joined by Salvini’s forces in Italy hinges on one contentious issue among them: how to deal with Russia. The Hungarians and Italians want to step back from sanctions and restore normal relations with the Kremlin, while Poland is the leading New Member State, alongside the Baltics, in denouncing Putin and raising Cold War ideology.  Clearly von der Leyen sees political advantage by appealing to the foreign policy side of Polish politics to prevent any anti-Brussels coalition from forming over domestic policy issues like abortion, the LGBTQ movement and similar.

In my essays of the past month dealing with Covid, I pointed to the EU’s going slow in approving the Russian Sputnik V vaccine for use in Europe. I said there was “no way in hell” that von der Leyen would allow its approval.  The justice of my analysis was supported this past week by the announcement of a new dimension to the approvals process of Sputnik V: one that violates directly the maxim of our day to “follow the science” and shifts the approval process to a purely political plane.  I refer to an article in The Financial Times of 7 April entitled “EU regulator to probe ethical standards of Sputnik vaccine trials.”

The European Medicines Agency will now examine whether Sputnik V trials met ‘good clinical practice’ – not in its technical dimension but in its ‘ethical’ dimension. In particular, the EMA is questioning whether military servicemen and state employees who took part in trials did so under pressure from their superiors. It is crystal clear that the intention of EU regulators is to disqualify Sputnik V on the basis of spurious denunciations that have been solicited for this purpose.

All of these machinations come at a particularly interesting moment when Europe, already far short of vaccines to raise the general level of vaccinated population to herd immunity by autumn, has just suffered another blow to its ambitions by the revelations of rare and deadly blood clots associated with administration of the Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, compelling authorities to limit their use to specific age bands.

“Sticks and stones…”

There are many loyal supporters of Putin in Russia who wonder, or who are dismayed, by the Kremlin’s very restrained response the slings and arrows being hurled at Russia from Washington every week or two. The Kremlin speaks of its response being “asymmetrical” but that gives little satisfaction to many Russians who fret that their national pride is being insulted by Washington without a price being exacted.

In the most recent case of this kind, Vladimir Putin made light of Joe Biden’s televised characterization of him as “a killer.” With Putin’s certain approval, Russian state television decided that portraying Uncle Joe as “senile” was the best way of defusing the issue. Russians may have had a laugh, but Americans were not aware that their verbal aggression had been pushed back.

I see this as the Russian application of our old folk expression about “names will never harm me” and so can be excused, whereas “sticks and stones” do elicit a determined and unmistakably militant response from the Kremlin.

In this regard, I insist that what is saving us all from a hot war today is not the efforts of our minuscule peace movements or of the few reasonable politicians on Capitol Hill or in the European Quarter of Brussels. It is the almost daily telephone exchanges between the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon and their counterpart, General Gerasimov in Moscow.

Most recently Dmitry Kozak top security advisor to President Putin on Ukraine matters, has said publicly that an all-out attack on the Donbass by Kiev in an effort to restore direct rule through military force would result in the end of Ukrainian statehood.  In this case, deeds have moved ahead of words, following the overall principles of Putin in power:  Russian military exercises and build-up of forces directly adjacent to its borders with Ukraine leave no doubt about its ability and will to crush Kiev if and when Zelensky decides to tempt fate and attack.  It would be nice if von der Leyen and Michel also paid attention.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2021

Registration for book presentation

The Russian Cultural Centre – Brussels has just put up online the registration page for my book presentation on the 22nd April, 7pm Brussels time

Memoirs of a Russianist, volume II: Russia in the Roaring 1990s

The book presentation is open to the public subject to advance registration.

The Cultural Centre website operates in 3 languages – English, French and Russian. For the link below, I have selected the English page, which is what will appear on your screen after you click on it.

I will be delivering my talk in English and there will be simultaneous translation into French and Russian from which viewers may choose.  The whole event will take one hour, split evently between my talk and the Q&A.


see you then

https://www.rushouse.be/post/%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82-%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2?locale=en_gb

Time for von der Leyen to go, time for the EU to reclaim common sense

Going back to the appointment of Ursula von der Leyen a couple of years ago, it was hard to understand the enthusiastic support from French President Emmanuel Macron that spelled her successful candidacy.  What, we wondered, could he see in her to justify such backing other than the odd fact that she had grown up in Brussels and was a fluent French speaker. Now we know better from her and his words and deeds: they are both unscrupulous political chameleons at the tactical level while pursuing purely ideological objectives at the strategic level, divorced from national interests, divorced from common sense, divorced from the people they purport to serve.

The ideology in common that they pursue is federalism and ever greater union as the guiding principles for the EU. Fanning the fire of Cold War enmity towards the big neighbor to the East is one way of holding power and bringing all EU elites into line with Diktats from Brussels.

 It was in the same time frame as von der Leyen’s election that Macron pooled his Republique en marche party’s Members of the European Parliament with the liberal democrat – pro federalist bloc ALDE that was long headed by Guy Verhofstandt.  That also seemed a bit peculiar when the successor bloc in the European Parliament named Renew Europe was formed. Verhofstadt’s MEPs had been among the loudest and most obnoxious Russia-bashers in the Parliament, sponsors of a “European Magnitsky Act”, buddies of Bill Browder, who was a leading force behind adoption of the original Magnitsky Act by the US Congress, buddies of Boris Nemtsov and any/all opponents to Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, Macron was talking outreach to Putin and accommodation with Russia in the common “European House” and spouting détente clichés going back to the DeGaulle period.

However, more recently, Macron has sidestepped his positions on Russia dating from 2019 as if they never existed and has become a full-blown Cold Warrior.  In the past week, he spoke out publicly against the “new warfare” supposedly being waged against the West by Russia and China in the form of their “vaccine diplomacy”, meaning the promotion of their respective Covid-19 vaccines to both developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and even to Member States of the European Union.

Macron’s ideological positions as Cold Warrior now match up perfectly with those of former German Defense Minister, today’s President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. Among the many tell-tale signs of who she is and what she is about, I point to her re-programming the EU’s senior diplomat Josep Borrel after his missteps in the Kremlin in early February when he spoke flatteringly of the Sputnik V vaccine, as something that would soon be welcomed in the EU.

Though her public utterances are vague, von der Leyen’s feet are pointed unmistakably:  no way in hell will she see the Russian vaccine approved. Every trick in the book is being deployed to delay, read stymie it.

In this context, and keeping in mind the pending gross violation of the overarching rule of all EU etiquette “Go along and get along” we must give our full attention to what the The Financial Times reported an hour ago about Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. He is said to be in negotiation with Russia to buy 1 million doses of the Sputnik-V vaccine following a direct telephone discussion with…Vladimir Putin.

This is, says the FT, in line with Kurz’s fierce criticism of the way the European Commission has mismanaged the entire procurement and distribution of Covid vaccines from the get-go. And this mismanagement goes back to the desk of one person:  Ursula von der Leyen.  Such a reading of the situation is, by the way, widely shared in neighboring Bavaria and more generally throughout Germany. 

If anything brings down the CDU-dominated coalition government in Germany in their September elections it will be the way Chancellor Merkel agreed to von der Leyen’s scheme for Brussels to take charge of the Covid vaccine program.  Now Kurz, by his latest actions, will be actively feeding that German discontent.

Returning to my opening remarks about the Cold War ideology being spouted by Macron and implemented by von der Leyen, it is well worth listening to Sebastian Kurz’s thoughts as quoted in the Financial Times online edition a few minutes ago:

“When it comes to the vaccine, there must be no geopolitical blinkers. The only thing that should count is whether the vaccine is effective and safe, not where it comes from.

“If Austria gets 1 m additional doses of vaccine, an earlier return to normality would be possible and we can save many lives as well as jobs.”

Somehow these concerns are not shared by Macron, not shared by von der Leyen.  There is a good chance that Macron will lose his re-election bid next year for a host of reasons, including his government’s disastrous handling of the Covid crisis at home.  Von der Leyen was never popularly elected, but she can and should be recalled by the MEPs, the sooner, the better. 

©Gilbert Doctorow

More self-imposed destruction of prosperity and of Europe’s role in the world by EU institutions

     The latest spat with China which the EU initiated just days ago by imposing sanctions on a handful of Chinese officials and institutions over the alleged violation of human rights in the PRC’s treatment of its Uighur minority is yet another demonstration of how and why the Old Continent is doomed, above and beyond its flagrant failures in managing the Covid pandemic.

     There can be no doubt that the decision to publicly denounce and shame China has been closely coordinated with the United States so as to align behind the Biden Administration and their ‘get tough’ posture vis-à-vis the Chinese.

     An American delegation headed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with their counterparts from the PRC in Anchorage, Alaska last week at a summit that the Secretary opened with the recitation of a litany of Chinese wrong-doing. In his words, the Chinese are not only violating principles of universal human rights by their treatment of their Uighur minority but putting in jeopardy the ‘rules based international order’ decreed and operated by the USA and its allies.

     The Europeans seem not to have taken notice of how that remarkable summit played out.  In fact, during the more than half hour televised exchange of opening remarks, the Chinese flung back in his face all of his accusations, remarking that the days were long past when imperial powers can dictate to the People’s Republic.  In what was otherwise Cold War vintage soap box oratory from the Americans, the Chinese responded in the other fixed part of such scenarios, namely with “what about-ism,” telling the Americans to go fix their own egregious human rights abuses in treatment of Blacks before they dare to preach to others.

     One might say that for decades we have not heard such boldness and repudiation of American tutelage from the Chinese side.  Had they perked up their ears and paid better attention, the European Institutions might have taken more time to consider their options in dealing with the PRC – options which are, in fact, very, very few. Given the strength of the Chinese economy today and the likelihood it will bypass the GDP of the United States within the coming decade, the EU can ill afford to alienate the Chinese, still less to lose their respect.

     However, the EU’s decision to inflict a verbal lashing on the Chinese over their alleged abuses and to couple that with sanctions that are absolutely insignificant translates into what the Chinese have for decades going back to Mao described as ‘paper tiger’ status.

     Let us remember that major media in Europe routinely give the microphone to loudmouth spokesmen of NGOs who speak of the Chinese “re-education” program for Uighurs in Xinjiang province as “genocide.”  Very emotive language, to be sure.  If those charges have any substance, then the sanctions just imposed by the EU as punishment are ludicrous.  And if it is the substance of the charges that is overblown, then the public denunciations should be quashed at the source.

    In short, the EU has opted for the worst of all possible ways of dealing with both China and with the United States. Biden and Blinken are practitioners of a shop-worn, utterly ineffectual Cold War vintage foreign policy.

     The only net effect of the latest demarche by the EU has been to put in jeopardy the ratification of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment that was seven years in negotiation, was signed off at the end of last year, ahead of the installation of the Biden presidency, and is said to provide substantial benefits to the EU in its trade relations with the PRC.

Meanwhile, the American verbal assault on the PRC led immediately to further close embrace between Moscow and Beijing. Two days ago Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arrived in the Chinese capital for consultations over mutual self-protection against the Collective West. One of the key topics on their agenda was to further develop their mechanism for global bank transfers outside of the US-dominated SWIFT – this to preclude possible expulsion from SWIFT as the ultimate Western sanction on them both.

     Let us be very clear. The United States has its own specific reasons to be tough on China, namely to enforce a policy of containment aimed at preventing the country from overtaking it economically and militarily in the foreseeable future.  The United States has its own military hegemony in Southeast Asia to defend against China’s rise and pursuit of regional hegemony.  Europe has nothing of the kind to justify making the PRC its adversary. 

     Henry Kissinger said decades ago that the only thing more dangerous than being an enemy of the United States is being its friend.  The EU is unfortunately proving the wisdom of that judgment by its present, American-dictated policy on China.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2021

Joe Biden is senile: Russia delivers its verdict on national television

              

A few days ago, I mentioned that the same-day response on Russian airwaves to President Biden’s calling Vladimir Putin a “killer” was to consider the mental health of the American president, then to conclude that he was not suffering from dementia. This rough and ready appraisal of Joe Biden was based on his not showing disorientation and his apparently still good memory.

However, on reflection, it is clear that the Russian elites have concluded that the best way to deal with Biden’s verbal aggression is precisely to cast him as senile. That resonates with middle aged Russians who remember very well their own succession of Communist Party bosses who had one foot in the grave at the same time they had one finger hovering over the Red Button of their nuclear controls.

In his last years, Brezhnev may have been only in his low 70s, but he was suffering from debilities that could not be concealed from the public: wearing a bulky and visible hearing aid, speaking with a slur that was due either to a stroke or some serious dental problem, appearing puffy and walking with difficulty, Brezhnev was carried along by his aides more for their benefit than for his. His immediate successor, KGB boss Yuri Andropov, was seriously ill at the time of his appointment as General Secretary and held office for fourteen months before he was carried out feet first. Then came another member of the Old Guard, Konstantin Chernenko, who was suffering from emphysema and could barely breathe when he was elevated to the top post. He stopped breathing altogether nine months later

This past Soviet experience with overaged and underperforming leaders came to an end with the installation of the vigorous and youthful Gorbachev in the mid-1980s.  It was more than compensated for by the elevation of the still younger and more vigorous Vladimir Putin at the turn of the new millennium.

This recent history was recited last night on the country’s leading weekly news program Vesti Nedeli by presenter Dmitry Kiselyov, who happens also to be the general manager of all Russian state news programming. This, to help the Russian audience understand what is now transpiring at the apex of American political life, where Joe Biden is just an old, debilitated and psychologically abnormal commander in chief.

The preceding days provided Kiselyov with a fine harvest of video images to support this case, most notably of Biden stumbling badly when ascending the stairs to board Air Force One at the start of his trip down to Atlanta for consultations over the murder of eight Asian American women in massage parlors. Then there was the video clip of Biden presenting his Secretary of Defense but failing to remember his name and coming up only with “General”…. And there was Biden calling Kamala Harris the “President,” as if he forgot or was no longer aware of who is who.

All in all, Kiselyov took about 30 minutes on air to reduce Biden to a sniveling and senile “old fart,” as the Russians like to say about such cases.

This, combined with extensive reportage on Americans who have written to the Russian embassy in Washington to apologize for the gross violation of normal interstate civility by their president, with coverage of Turkish President and other world leaders condemning Biden for his grossness, made for an entertaining evening that, exceptionally in this spring of Third Waves, was not sunk by horror stories about the Covid pandemic.

The logic of this treatment of the Biden affair is clear. By responding to an ad hominem attack on their leader with an ad hominem attack on Biden, the initiator of this exchange, presenting him as an old fool, they have taken the sting out of the U.S. president’s remarks. At the same time the anti-Americanism implicit in the report is veiled by saying, in effect to America: “we know what you have in the Oval Office since we have gone through that same patch ourselves.”

And so, Russian elites had a good laugh at America’s expense and are well prepared for a sharp cutback in diplomatic exchange with the USA.

What, we may ask, has the U.S. gotten from Biden’s verbal indiscretions?

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2021

Iran state television’s international service: more even-handed than the BBC?

              

For those whose first thoughts of Iran are formed by recollection of Ayatollahs, of alleged state support for terrorism and of power plays in the Middle East, allow me to give you a needed jolt.

Last night I had the pleasure of participating in a half-hour feature news program of Press TV, which broadcasts internationally in English and French.  The  subject of our “debate” or more properly speaking “discussion,” was  the U.S. diplomatic moves of the previous couple of days with respect to China (the Blinken delegation to Anchorage) and to Russia (President Biden’s designation of Vladimir Putin as a ‘killer’).

The producers had sagely invited for the interview an expert on China based in Budapest, Hungary and an expert on Russia, myself, based in Brussels.  I leave it to you to judge the quality of Iranian journalism that we see in the program. I will only remark that the choice of my counterpart was quite remarkable given that Iran was the host of our talk:  Mr. Szamuely very plainly is a strong supporter of Donald Trump, who had been fairly vicious in his treatment of Tehran during his four years in office. So be it.

Biden on ‘killer’ Putin

In the USA, all politics is about one country only:  itself.  The Rest of the World is only a stage setting, a tableau against which American politicians posture and mud wrestle with one another.

The latest and perhaps most serious manifestation of this indifference to the fall-out of domestic political rhetoric on the world beyond US borders was President Biden’s response yesterday to a journalist’s question as to whether he considered Vladimir Putin to be a “killer.”  Without a moment’s hesitation, Biden said “yes.” He and the country at large may yet rue that pandering to his Democratic Party base and its Russophobe fantasies.

Our Western press did take note of that remark and looked for the Russian response, which was not long in coming.  The first shoe to drop was the decision of the Kremlin to recall its Ambassador in Washington to Moscow for consultations on how to proceed with bilateral relations, which appeared to be headed for the rocks. After all, the “killer” comment was only the unscripted part of an interview during which the President  said that Russia would soon be made to pay a price for alleged interference in the 2020 elections. All of this was duly picked up by our media. 

The second shoe to drop was the direct response by President Putin to the words of Biden. In a meeting with citizens in the Crimea, where he was joining local celebrations of the seventh anniversary of Crimea’s re-joining the Russian Federation, Putin said calmly and directly about the designation as “a killer”: “It takes one to know one.” He went on to magnanimously wish the American president “good health,” adding, “without any sense of irony.”

This is as much as your average reader of The Guardian or other mainstream press would know about the public spat between the White House and the Kremlin that Biden initiated gratuitously. That average Western reader would not be likely to watch domestic Russian state television to see how this whole affair is being played to the Russian public.  I do, and I use this opportunity to share with my readership what I saw there last night and today.

On one of the leading Russian political talk shows last night the subject was precisely the “killer” remark by Biden.  And the panelists were not just some lightweight commentators who chatter night after night on sundry subjects.  The panelist who was given the microphone most generously was none other than Petr Tolstoy, Deputy Chairman of the Russian State Duma and, since his election in 2020, Deputy Speaker in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, based in Strasbourg. Tolstoy denounced the Biden statement and discussed with the others how this would negatively impact on any chances for constructive joint work with the US administration in any domain whatsoever.

Today’s Russian news programs remain focused on the language used by Biden and what this means for future relations.  Russian news agencies are quoting other world leaders who have condemned Biden’s remarks as inappropriate as applied to a head of state. The most prominent leader to speak out so far is Turkey’s president Erdogan, who backed up his “colleague” Vladimir.

Biden’s vilification of Putin is just the latest and most damaging in a string of insults that go back to his time as Vice President under Barack Obama. Back then Biden had dared to call Putin “a thug.”  But he was only the Vice President and his boss, Barack, had also been pretty free in his personal attacks on the Russian leader, whom he described familiarly as behaving like a naughty boy at the back of the school room.

My point in closing is that this type of public insult directed against other world leaders is outrageous and demonstrates that Trump was not an aberration in his uncouth behavior towards Angela Merkel or Justin Trudeau, among others. Well-educated members of the US political class can be just as Ugly.  In their false sense of security as “untouchables,” American politicians are tempting fate. A less reserved and decent boss in the Kremlin might take off the gloves.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2021

Russia as the UK’s number one security threat

Once again I am grateful to RT International for inviting me to do a live interview that forced me to put on my thinking cap and get my mind around a key development in international relations that might have not caught my attention were it not for their prompting me.

To be specific, I was invited to comment on Boris Johnson’s presentation to Parliament two days ago

of the 110 page paper entitled “Global Britain in a Competitive Age.”

That paper covers a lot of ground, but the Russian interest in it focused on one issue only: the designation of Russia as the UK’s chief security threat, while China, the other major power that otherwise has been characterized by the Collective West these past several years as being “revisionist” and “expansionist,” as well as a flagrant violator of our values, alongside Putin’s Russia, is designated in this paper merely as a “competitor.”

By their own report on the British foreign policy paper and by the nature of the questions tossed to me by the presenter, it was obvious that the policy line at RT is to hold Russia blameless and to deny that it is a security threat to the UK; to insist that Russia seeks only good relations with the UK and with the West generally.

I did not oblige, saying instead that I agreed with the British assessment regarding both Russia and China today.

It is a remarkable feature of RT that I was nonetheless allowed to continue uninterrupted my prepared statement on the significance of the “Global Britain” for what must have been a total of six or eight minutes.  This serious openness to unexpected, possibly even unwelcome commentary from experts abroad who are given the microphone would never, ever happen on CNN, Fox News, the BBC or any of the famous defenders of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the West. Never.  Indeed the occasion would not present itself, since interviews of this kind in Western media are almost always pre-recorded and cut to fit the desired position of the hosts or simply suppressed if not deemed suitable.

Now, why had I reached my conclusion about the nature of relative threat to British security posed by Russia and China respectively. Here is my reasoning:

China is at present and for the foreseeable future a regional, not a global power. It is expanding its military and political posture in Southeast Asia and is building its navy first to push back the United States naval presence.  A look at the map shows that China and the UK are at opposite ends of the globe and the UK today has no navy to compare with the US Pacific and Indian Ocean fleets.

As for Russia, although Barack Obama had once remarked that Russia is only a regional power in the same derogatory tone as he suggested that Russia made nothing that the world wants, Vladimir Putin had the presence of mind to ask “and in which region is Russia a regional power.”  Behind the clever retort was the reminder that Russia is the world’s largest land power which bridges two continents.  But let us put that rhetoric aside for the moment. If Russia is indeed just a regional military and political power, its region is Europe, which it shares with Britain.  And within that region, Russia is undisputedly the single greatest military power, far greater in men, equipment and technological prowess than any single European power  taken separately, and arguably, greater than all of them together as represented by NATO.  In this context, it is quite correct to identify Russia as the greatest security threat to the UK.

But, the RT presenter argued, Russia has no aggressive intentions directed against the UK. Russia wants only normal, civilized relations.

My response is that U.S. military thinking ever since 9/11 has been unmistakable:  it is capability and not intent that makes another power a threat to the US. This was built into the “Bush Doctrine” and its elements may be traced still further back to 1992 and the Defense Planning Guidance developed by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz when the USA was still the unchallenged single super-power in the world.  We may assume that this same logic has guided the British determination today that Russia is a major threat to their security. Talk of incursions into UK territorial waters or air space is just a smoke screen for the real determining factors in the risk analysis.

In my little programmatic statement, I pointed out that the timing of the release of this new British foreign policy paper was set to underpin the hoped-for re-confirmation of Britain’s so-called “special relationship” with the United States.  It follows quickly upon the installation of the new Biden Administration and upon the finalization of Britain’s departure the European Union on New Year’s Day, which deprived Britain of its coveted status as America’s Trojan Horse within the EU.  “Global Britain” is an attempt to show to Washington just how useful Britain can be in defending common values and deterring autocratic powers like Russia that threaten us both. 

This new appeal to Washington is underpinned by another key point in the “Global Britain” paper – the decision to raise its nuclear warhead stockpile for its Trident submarine fleet by 40% in coming years.  A great deal of money will be poured into this strategic initiative which surely has the intent to remind the USA of Britain’s nearly exclusive position as a nuclear power supporting the US deterrence globally.  Apart from the less manageable French, no other NATO power can give the US a strategic helping hand.

It is worth noting that the increase in strategic spending will be partially offset by cutbacks in tactical support men and equipment. Britain will be shedding 10,000 troops and mothballing tanks and ships. This is not a stand-alone decision. It means that Britain’s value to NATO for power projection in the European and other theaters will decline proportionally.

The decision to turn its back on the recent decades of leadership in nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear arms reduction has been denounced by British peace-niks.  Their concern misses the point.  It is scarcely credible that the British investment in a warhead stockpile will hasten deployment, not to mention use of nuclear arms.  It is primarily a lever for maintaining the longstanding relationship in global affairs with Washington.

As regards, the characterizations assigned to Russia and China in the “Global Britain” paper, there is also another important guiding consideration.  Following the recent closure of the post-Brexit transition period, Britain is suffering great disruption to trade with its hitherto single greatest commercial partner, the European Union.  It can ill afford to see any worsening of relations with China, which will likely overtake the United States as the world’s biggest economy before the close of this decade.  Accordingly, whatever the UK Government may think of human rights violations in China or of the alleged violations to its agreements with the PRC over the status of Hong Kong, Britain cannot afford to paint China as an adversary.

However, Russia is a different case. British commercial interests in Russia are minimal. Russia can easily serve as a punching bag to show up Britain’s tough guy stance to a Washington audience.  In this sense, British and US interests are wholly aligned.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2021