Dangerous delusions in Europe

For many years, the level of delusion in Europe abut Russia has been something to marvel at. As far back as March 2014 the sociologist Professor Frank Furedi was expressing his surprise, and coming to the conclusion that: “I have come to the uncomfortable conclusion that the motives behind the current campaign to demonise Russia are based on genuine convictions”. That is; in his view, European leaders really believe their own propaganda about Russia. Much of this is simply a kind of spectacle. One can just watch apparently educated and intelligent people utter the most abject nonsense about Russia – ideas which would not stand up to even a few minutes analysis with reference to historical facts or plausible theories of how states act. Luckily for them, the Western media does not, as a rule, subject their utterances to any meaningful questioning. They just amplify them. The only problem is that this spectator sport of watching in a kind of thrilled amazement that leaders, actual leaders, many with post-graduate qualifications to their name can be so fundamentally, stupid, is beginning to feel a little less fun. These delusions could, to put it briefly, lead us into a nuclear catastrophe.

Consider some of today’s gems. (All quoted from the Guardian). [2]

The German foreign minister Johann Wadephul:

We all get used to constant Russian lament about supposed western plots to influence the Russian society. In reality, of course, it is Russia that is spending millions of dollars subverting democratic processes around the world.

we are yet to see meaningful Russian readiness to negotiate.”

The Russian position today seems to almost boil down to if we don’t get for free, what we couldn’t get during 11 years of fighting, we won’t even talk…

That is not a serious negotiation position, but it is a potent reminder that this war would probably only end when Putin feels that the consequences of continuing it having become too painful to get there

This is an almost bizarre feature of these people. They fund and support information campaigns which aim to influence Russian society. The UK has something called the ‘Integrity Imitative’, which is an intelligence organisation linked operation to promote the UK’s viewpoints in the media and counter Russian viewpoints. [3] BBC Russian output is a relentless stream of attempts to convert Russians to the current (delusional) Western views on Russia. YouTube, before it was blocked in Russia, used to curate and feed pro-Western anti-Russia content to Russian audiences. (Let’s not forget US State Department Funded Radio Free Europe – a pure destabilisation operation; I’ve read that Radio Free Europe was to be closed by the Trump administration, but as of today its Russia page is up and running and full of stories about how awful the Russian authorities are; the aim is promote regime change). Western governments support “independent Russian media”. For example; the Moscow Times, (banned in Russia), is supported by Stichting 2 Oktober foundation which admits rather vaguely to getting “grants from governments”. [3] Indeed Stichting 2 Oktober aims to “… promote and support independent journalists and independent journalism in, but not limited to, Russia and the former Soviet Union, and in that context to promote free and pluralistic opinion formation and democratic relations by promoting freedom of expression and freedom of the press, ” [4] (Google Translation from Dutch). This clearly implies promoting a liberal, Western, outlook in Russia. Other “independent Russian media” may be funded by, for example the EU, as is the case with “Rain”. [5] When Rain themselves talk about receiving “private donations” – that could mean anything. In short; the West is hard at work trying to influence Russian society in a liberal direction. Yes; one can produce examples of Russian influence campaigns, though these are often blown out of all proportion. It is just weird that Western leaders denounce Russia for influence campaigns while cheerfully funding the same going the other way.

As for German Foreign Minister’s comments about the Russian negotiating position, it seems he really is not very bright. “The Russian position today seems to almost boil down to if we don’t get for free, what we couldn’t get during 11 years of fighting, we won’t even talk. This is not a serious negotiation position”. Well; a) it is simply wrong; they are talking, a lot – to the Americans; there have been numerous calls and visits, b) if he means that Russia is insisting on getting the whole of Donetsk, that does appear to be the case. He can call it not serious; but, that is the position. Calling it “not serious” may reflect the Minister’s frustrated sense of how things should be done – but it seems the Russians are indeed quite happy to keep fighting until they get this, if they cannot get it via diplomacy. As for “only end when Putin feels that the consequences of continuing it having become too painful to get there” – we have discussed this problem many times on this site. Many European leaders, and some American, seem to believe that Putin is operating on a cost-benefit analysis basis. They reason, that if they can increase the cost side of Putin’s calculus, then he will re-calculate and accept the European position. In his book, How States Think, The Rationality of Foreign Policy, Professor John Mearsheimer considers the idea that state actors, (leaders), make decisions based on a cost-benefit type analysis, and finds it wanting. He shows that states simply cannot make decisions on this basis, not least because they would not have enough information to make informed decisions. Putin is no exception. Russia launched their operation on Ukraine, to take territory in the East to protect Russians and ‘pro-Russian’ people, and to, (one way or another), neutralise what they see as a threat emanating from that Ukraine. The latter, certainly, is strategic and existential and this means that no amount of “pain” will deter them. Putin is not trading Russian security for prospects of prosperity at some kind of bazar. As Mearsheimer argues; security is key because without security no other aims of the state matter.

The German Foreign Minister simply can’t be thinking.

Meanwhile, the former Dutch Prime Minister, and NATO chief, Mark Rutte is also off on one:

I’m here today to tell you where Nato stands and what we must do to stop a war before it starts. And to do that, we need to be crystal clear about the threat: we are Russia’s next target, and we are already in harm’s way.

Putin believes that our freedom threatens his stranglehold on power and that we want to destroy Russia

So let’s put Putin to the test. Let’s see if he really wants peace or if he prefers the slaughter to continue,” he says.

(I think we know the answer by now, Mark.)

The last comment “I think we know the answer” is from the Guardian reporter – a reflection of how the media and political circles in Europe are all 100% on the same unthinking page.

“We are Russia’s next target”. My gosh. This is the new myth; that Russia could and would ‘attack NATO’. Were Russia to do that; it would lead to a bloody confrontation which would have an extremely high risk of ending in global nuclear catastrophe, which would obviously not be in Russia’s interests. Why would Russia “attack Europe”? Did any of the journalists at the Munich Security Conference ask Rutte that simple question? It doesn’t stand up to a moment’s rational thought that Russia has some kind of territorial designs on Europe. States attack other states in most cases out of a sense of threat; they want to ensure their security and sometimes this means attacking others before they attack you. In that sense, Russia could, conceivably attack NATO as a kind or ‘pre-emptive’ strike, before NATO attacks them – but, given a) the disparity in economic power and population and b) the more or less inevitable escalation to nuclear, Russia, if acting rationally, would not attack NATO – they would maintain a posture of readiness. This is exactly what they appear to be doing in terms of force development, and what Putin recently said they were doing when he said that Russia would be ready if attacked.

“Putin believes that our freedom threatens his stranglehold on power and that we want to destroy Russia”; this is another kind of trope. In fact as a sentence it doesn’t really make much sense. It is just words; a kind of mindless repetition of certain myths. If we help Rutte out and try to see what he is saying he seems to be expressing two ideas. The first is that Putin, who is, of course, a “dictator”, is personally threatened by the “freedom” he sees in Europe. This could be called the Navalny argument. but it is based on illusions. Navalny’s supporters were (and are) a tiny minority in Russia. The majority of Russians do not say “I wish we could be more like a liberal European state”. The majority of Russians say things like: “Thank heavens we are not like America”, and “We do not want democracy”. It might be anecdotal, but this is my experience, living in Russia. Putin knows this and while the Kremlin is certainly trying to stop Western undermining of these kinds of view the Kremlin is not having to “brainwash” their own population into these viewpoints. The second idea is that Putin thinks the West is trying to destroy Russia. A delusion according to Rutte. At this point I recall a US State Department Video on YouTube after the Maidan coup and subsequent Russian annexation of Crimea. The video boasted of how sanctions would destroy Russia. The accompanying graphic vividly showed Russia getting smaller and smaller until it simply vanished! And; what was NATO doing in Ukraine? And what about all the CIA bases along the border with Russia? [6] If your avowed strategic adversary comes and parks his tank right on your border and starts swivelling the turret in your direction, you could be forgiven for suspecting the worst. Did a single journalist at the Munich Security Conference ask Rutte why Russia is supposed to regard the prospect of NATO in Ukraine as something of no consequence? Would the US chatter about “sovereignty” if Russia set up shop in Venezuela?

All these delusions are becoming dangerous. Wars start when two sides face off and each accuses the other of threatening them and preparing an attack, and each arms themselves “in case”. We are moving clearly into this territory. And for what? From the side of the West – a purely invented threat. Russia’s position, on the other hand, is clear; they have stated what they see the threat as, (a Ukraine led by extreme nationalists and in NATO), and they are taking precise steps to remove that threat. Once they have done that; they will go home. It sometimes looks, though, as if NATO isn’t ready to let that happen. At this stage they almost need a war to justify their rhetoric. This is becoming rather serious.

This is Daniel Davis who sees things the same way as I do, above. Rutte/NATO is beefing up towards war. (I think it is about humiliation. Crimea was a huge humiliation for NATO; they were caught off-guard, and completely failed. I thought at the time there would be some pay-back for that. It may be a long time coming, but it looks like they are still out to pay Russia back for that humiliation).

Notes

Dangerous delusions in Europe

Related Posts

Kiev’s last chanceKiev’s last chance

TV Rain “Independent” Russia media. Not.TV Rain “Independent” Russia media. Not.

Ukrainians want a negotiated solution but they aren’t listening in No. 10Ukrainians want a negotiated solution but they aren’t listening in No. 10