“The United States should pursue a sustainable cooperative relationship with Nazi Germany to advance vital American national interests.”
If you saw that conclusion from two American academics just as World War II was getting started, would you be offended? Shocked? Infuriated? Would you think you were dealing with amoral scumbags who were probably more dangerous to the USA than the Nazis themselves?
Well that is the conclusion (replacing “Nazi Germany” with “Russia”) recently offered with respect to Russia in “Russia and U.S. National Interests” by Graham Allison and Robert Blackwill, written under the aegis of Dmitri Simes of the Nixon Center. If the whole report makes you too ill, maybe you should content yourself with the summary recently published by Politico.
It’s quite a trio. Simes is one of the more dishonest and unreliable Russia analysts working today. He is employed by the Nixon Center, an entity created to glorify America’s most corrupt-ever president, the only one driven from office in disgrace, and routinely churns out a drumbeat of propaganda urging us, in the manner of Henry Kissenger, to ignore morality and just try to squeeze Russia for whatever we can get.
Allison is a former assistant defense secretary and Blackwill is a former ambassador . . . to India. It’s not exactly the first pair you’d turn to if you wanted expertise on Russia, is it?
In Politico, the authors give “ten reasons” why America must ignore morality where Russia is concerned, betray democracy, and give the Russians what they want — in other words, must do exactly what Barack Obama is currently doing.
Here are the “reasons”:
(1) Russia has nuclear weapons.
(2) Russia has nuclear weapons.
(3) Russia has nuclear weapons.
(4) Russia is helping America destroy Al Qaeda.
(5) Russia is helping America destroy Al Qaeda.
(6) Russia has a lot of oil and gas.
(7) Russia sits on the G-8 an UN Security Council.
(8) Russia has a lot of territory.
(9) Russians are good at science and are the only ones with spaceships.
(10) Russia can help terrorists if it wants to.
If you’re like us, the first thing you notice about this list of ten items is that it only has seven items on it, because one item is repeated twice and one is repeated three times, for a total of three redundancies. That’s kind of weird, isn’t it? Almost makes you think the authors are trying to make their case look artificially strong, doesn’t it?
In fact, what the authors are really saying is even more simple than that: There are two reasons we should do Russia’s bidding. If we don’t give the Russians what they want, they’ll kill us. If we do give them what they want, the Russians might help us in some vague ways which, if not really valuable, are at least better than being killed.
They write: ”Russia remains the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in 30 minutes.” Then they add: “ Consider what a Russian president intent on frustrating U.S. international objectives could do — from stopping the supply flow to Afghanistan to selling S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N. Security Council resolutions.”
Then they add: “Americans feel Russia’s impact at our gas pumps.” So not only might Russians kill us if we don’t give them what we want, they might make our gas tanks run dry.
If we sell out democracy Russia and in Eastern Europe, however, the authors believe Russia won’t kill us, and instead will try to help us as best it can. This is the logic Neville Chamberlain followed in regard to Nazi Germany.
The list of ways in which Russia will help us is pretty short and simple: Russia will help us by telling us what it knows about Al Qaeda and letting us send supplies to Afghanistan, by voting with us against China on the UN Security Council, by letting us trade in and through Russia, and by not switching off Google or access to space.
Huh? Switching off Google? Yes, the authors say we wouldn’t have Google without Russia, because Sergei Brin, Google’s founder, is Russian. But Brin left Russia at the age of six. He wasn’t educated in Russia, he was educated in the USA, at the University of Maryland and at Stanford. So it’s actually the USA that can switch off Google for Russia if it wants, not the other way around.
This same dishonesty follows the authors through all the other ways Russia can supposedly help the United States.
The authors give absolutely no specific facts about how Russia has assisted the US in destroying Al Qaeda, and they ignore reports that Russia is actually helping Al Qaeda to destroy the US.
The authors give no factual basis at all for believing that Russia will side with the US against China. This view is childishly naive at best, at worst dangerously psychotic. Russia is ruled by a man who has spent his entire life in the KGB learning to despise America and her values, and who spends every waking minute seeking to obliterate them within Russia’s borders. He has called Americans “parasites.” To suggest that he is only doing this because he wants attention, that if given enough he will abandon it and become America’s reliable ally against China, is offensive to one’s intelligence. It is exactly the sort of insane “thinking” that led Chamberlain to befriend Hitler, to the detriment of the world.
And the authors don’t give any factual basis for their contention that being able to move commercial goods through Russia to foreign buyers is valuable to the US economy. Is trade with Kazakhstan really essential to the U.S.? Is Russia really going to allow the US access to Kazakhstan that will help that country become less dependent on Russia and more on the US? The authors don’t even try to address such questions because, if they did, this “reason” would evaporate into the ether.
These “reasons” for cuddling up to Russia are the same ones given by dangerous extremists like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. It’s highly ironic to see the so-called liberal Obama administration aping Buchanan and Paul,