Something About Putin's Protests That Doesn't Add Up
Putin, being in the cross-hairs of the U.S. government and its enforcement of increasing economic sanctions, tries to sound like the one reasonable voice in this stage of the Ukrainian crisis precipitated by the downing of the Malaysian passenger jet. Much has been written - with much of it pure conjecture, speculation and, of course, propaganda - on both sides. That's only natural, since governments the world over and throughout history prove themselves reluctant proponents of truth, since truth frequently proves an inconvenient governor on their aspiration of increasing their raw power. Given this state of affairs, it only seems reasonable to sometimes ignore, and frequently discount everything - and I mean everything - that comes from the mouths of government officials.
With all that in mind, some of the facts emerging from the Malaysian jet shoot-down are known. The jet was flying at high cruising altitude - around 33,000 feet - putting it out of range of shoulder-fired missiles and in the realm of missiles that need to be launched from some sort of stationary launch-pad, as opposed to a person's shoulder. Some disagreement exists over whether such a missile was launched by Ukrainian separatists who prefer Russians masters to their own Kiev government, or possibly by Ukrainian forces. Some have even conjectured that the Russian government's own forces launched the missile. There's still room for debate here, but, of course, those who withhold judgement are few and far between.
Paul Craig Roberts falls into that class of commentators who have already passed judgement: the Ukrainian government's own forces did this; they did it so that they could blame the Russian government and/or the separatists, preferably both.
Now Mr. Roberts, a former Assistant Treasury Secretary of the U.S., was once someone whom I read from time to time, and I did sometimes understand and agree with his strong criticisms of the the U.S. government's policies. Then one day I realized that he publishes his pieces under the "RT" banner, a Russian media outlet. And while I rarely read his pieces anymore, given that so much of his commentary serves as propaganda for the Russian government that stands behind RT, which, of course, stands behind Roberts, his latest piece caught my eye so I made an exception and read it. In a way, I'm glad I did, as it might serve us as an example of how we can use our reason to draw conclusions even in the absence of a preponderance of supporting facts.
Here we find Mr. Roberts support for V. Putin's efforts at "diplomacy" portrayed in a light that the history of either the Moscow government nor Mr. Putin can support. In Moscow's case, one finds centuries of imperial ambition resulting in a Czarist Empire, followed by a Soviet Empire, both of which subjugated and exploited neighboring countries and people who were not Russian. In Putin's case, a cursory knowledge of his bio shows him to have been an ambitious member of Russia's security organization, the KGB, who thrived on using the tools of power, one of which was disregard for truth in favor of propaganda, if not outright lies. Indeed, Putin himself has made it clear that he wishes to restore Moscow's hegemony over its Asian and European neighbors.
So what to make of Roberts' statement about Putin's erstwhile diplomacy?
Given what we know about the history of Russia's government, and Putin's own past, does any of this add up? I think Mr. Roberts once again demonstrates not only a slanted view of what emanates from Moscow, but also an obsequiousness toward Putin that damages Mr. Roberts credibility, even when he appears to reasonable criticize Washington. Best to ignore his propaganda altogether at this point.
With all that in mind, some of the facts emerging from the Malaysian jet shoot-down are known. The jet was flying at high cruising altitude - around 33,000 feet - putting it out of range of shoulder-fired missiles and in the realm of missiles that need to be launched from some sort of stationary launch-pad, as opposed to a person's shoulder. Some disagreement exists over whether such a missile was launched by Ukrainian separatists who prefer Russians masters to their own Kiev government, or possibly by Ukrainian forces. Some have even conjectured that the Russian government's own forces launched the missile. There's still room for debate here, but, of course, those who withhold judgement are few and far between.
Paul Craig Roberts falls into that class of commentators who have already passed judgement: the Ukrainian government's own forces did this; they did it so that they could blame the Russian government and/or the separatists, preferably both.
Now Mr. Roberts, a former Assistant Treasury Secretary of the U.S., was once someone whom I read from time to time, and I did sometimes understand and agree with his strong criticisms of the the U.S. government's policies. Then one day I realized that he publishes his pieces under the "RT" banner, a Russian media outlet. And while I rarely read his pieces anymore, given that so much of his commentary serves as propaganda for the Russian government that stands behind RT, which, of course, stands behind Roberts, his latest piece caught my eye so I made an exception and read it. In a way, I'm glad I did, as it might serve us as an example of how we can use our reason to draw conclusions even in the absence of a preponderance of supporting facts.
Here we find Mr. Roberts support for V. Putin's efforts at "diplomacy" portrayed in a light that the history of either the Moscow government nor Mr. Putin can support. In Moscow's case, one finds centuries of imperial ambition resulting in a Czarist Empire, followed by a Soviet Empire, both of which subjugated and exploited neighboring countries and people who were not Russian. In Putin's case, a cursory knowledge of his bio shows him to have been an ambitious member of Russia's security organization, the KGB, who thrived on using the tools of power, one of which was disregard for truth in favor of propaganda, if not outright lies. Indeed, Putin himself has made it clear that he wishes to restore Moscow's hegemony over its Asian and European neighbors.
So what to make of Roberts' statement about Putin's erstwhile diplomacy?
The flaw in Putin’s diplomacy is that Putin’s diplomacy relies on good will and on truth prevailing. However, the West has no good will, and Washington is not interested in truth prevailing but in Washington prevailing. What Putin confronts is not reasonable “partners,” but a propaganda ministry aimed at him.We are to believe that Putin's diplomacy "relies on good will and on truth prevailing." We also must concede "reasonableness" to Moscow vs. Washington's "threats."
I understand Putin’s strategy, which contrasts Russian reasonableness with Washington’s threats, but it is a risky bet.
Given what we know about the history of Russia's government, and Putin's own past, does any of this add up? I think Mr. Roberts once again demonstrates not only a slanted view of what emanates from Moscow, but also an obsequiousness toward Putin that damages Mr. Roberts credibility, even when he appears to reasonable criticize Washington. Best to ignore his propaganda altogether at this point.
Comments