Newspaper opinion piece
by Stephen Kinzer acknowledging the
debunking of “Russiagate” (Boston Sunday Globe, April 7th 2019)
Even after the “Russiagate” claim of supposed Russian interference in
the last US Presidential Election was irrefutably debunked, members of the
Democratic Party elite and sections of the US “Deep State” of National
Security/Intelligence in alliance with sections of the mainstream media
continue to peddle this asinine and tiresome trope that posits certain American
politicians as collaborators, assets or useful idiots of the Russian state.
Hillary Clinton used it against US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and now the
same ploy of projecting a political figure as being Russia’s “favoured
candidate” is being used against another presidential aspirant US Senator
Bernie Sanders.
The 2019
report into “Russiagate” by Robert Mueller turned up no credible evidence to back
up the narrative that the Russian state orchestrated a powerful and effective
campaign to influence the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton. The core narrative of “Russiagate” lacked solid evidence. Right from
the beginning, astute commentators such as Emeritus Professor Stephen Cohen, an
expert in Russian affairs for decades, pronounced the two central documents on
which the whole Russiagate sage relied as “impotent”. If anything the real
interference which inspired “Russiagate” had to do with the State of Israel
attempting to fix a vote in the United Nations in regard to which the Israelis
hoped that Russia would refrain from exercising its right of veto in a UN
Resolution concerning the Palestinian issue. It speaks volumes that the
mainstream media and the politicians of the world’s most powerful nation are
fearful of speaking out about the power of the Israel Lobby in US domestic
politics and foreign policy.
It is
important to explain the motivation behind “Russiagate” and the actors who
perpetrated the myth. “Russiagate” is simply the fruit of an alliance between
the Democratic Party elite and members of the military-security establishment.
The former wished to exact revenge on Trump for inflicting an unexpected defeat
on their candidate, while the latter have a financial interest in prolonging a
Cold War with Russia because peace or rapprochement would effectively mean the
extraordinary levels of money spent by the United States on defence in terms of
manufacturing weapons, maintaining bases around the globe and justifying its
vast intelligence network would be rendered redundant.
The Russia
smear is thus a political weapon directed at any politician who speaks out
against American militarism, whether as pertaining to the manufactured Cold War
against the Russian Federation or to the unchanging policy of instigating overt
and covert wars of regime change.
Those who
threaten the interests composed of defence contractor companies such as
Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon along with serving and former serving
officials of the Pentagon imperil the continuation of an extremely lucrative
trade in arms, ammunition and miscellaneous weapons of war.
Thus, when
Trump promised during the presidential election campaign of 2016 to leave NATO,
as well as his description of Russia as not an enemy, he was inviting the wrath
of a amalgam of powerful interests. The same may be said of Tulsi Gabbard and
her campaign against the American policy of regime change wars, and of Bernie
Sanders and his perennial anti-war stance.
This powerful
and malevolent interest group wields considerable clout in American politics
through the control and influence exercised on political representatives in
both houses of the United States Congress. It is a group which President Dwight
D. Eisenhower warned the American public to be wary of, when giving his farewell address to the
nation. Eisenhower described this burgeoning interest group, in his words “an
immense military establishment and large arms industry” as the “Military
Industrial Complex”. He prophesied that it would threaten American democracy in
the future.
The
“unwarranted influence” acquired by the Military Industry has come to pass.
Tufts
University Professor Michael J. Glennon in his lengthy paper cum book “National
Security and Double Government” identified what he termed the “Trumanite”
institutions (in contrast to the “Madisonian” institutions of state governance
prescribed by the American Constitution), an unaccountable collection of former
military, intelligence and law enforcement officers whose influence has been
strong enough to ensure that America’s national security policy, one of
consistent militarism, has essentially remained unchanged through the
administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
The Military
Industry has its tentacles in politicians whose payoffs are enabled by laws
which allow unlimited electoral spending. It also has a pervading influence on
the mainstream media regardless of the ideological designation of “liberal” or
“conservative”. Thus we see Democratic Party Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,
who tore up President Trump’s State of the Union address, rise up to applaud
Trump’s expression of support for the US puppet Juan Guaido, the man being used
by the US National Security State to overthrow the legitimate government of
Venezuela.
It also
explains the pro-war sentiments of supposed liberal media figures such as Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper, both of
whom are emblematic of the sort of liberal political and media figures who
subscribe to “Humanitarian Wars” which fulfill the war agenda of the Military
Industry and its perennial allies associated with the neoconservative agenda
and the Israel Lobby.
The
“Russiagate” smear is a disinformation exercise geared to denigrate and to
discredit politicians. It is not limited to effecting the derailment of
political campaigns, it also serves as a tool to be used to control the policy
of a successful candidate in terms of their conduct of relations with Russia.
The reactions
of those targeted has been varied. While Trump and Gabbard have actively fought
against it, Sanders has unwisely played into the narrative by accepting the
intelligence services claim that Russia has habitually interfered with the US
electoral process and by referring to Vladimir Putin as an “autocratic thug”.
Many
unfortunately are still unable to ascertain the obeisance to the dictates of
the Military Industry as being at the root of the attacks and smears mounted
against the likes of Gabbard and Sanders, and as a result the mainstream media
is able to revive the canard of the Kremlin-orchestrated undermining of
American democracy.
The question
now is how much longer will the insouciant masses keep falling for the same old
ruse?
© Adeyinka
Makinde (2020).
Adeyinka
Makinde is a writer based in London, England.
No comments:
Post a Comment