“Pravda” (truth) was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the “truth” detailed in its columns was reality as defined by the CPSU. The clearly capable White House Press Secretary has ensured that not just the mainstream media but leading social media influencers reflect the conflict with Russia as defined by the White House. Jen Psaki deserves a raise. There is no need any more for the followers of mainstream media or influencers to access their favourites. All that they need to do is view clips on YouTube of Jen Psaki, Joe Biden, Antony Blinken and other officials who present the “truth” in the manner that the White House regards as advantageous for the Democratic Party in the 2020 midterms. It has not been a secret that media in the Russian Federation is overall respectful of President Putin. They apparently do not share the view, couched in terms that these days passes for diplomacy in the NATO bloc, that Putin is at best insane and at worst, an incarnation of Adolf Hitler. NATO channels endlessly repeated the clip of a charming lady holding a placard against the war and state propaganda in a Russian news channel. The young lady has apparently been persuaded by her VPN access to NATO channels that it is only a matter of weeks if not days before Putin gets toppled in Moscow in the manner that President Viktor Yanukovich was toppled by street violence in Kyiv in 2014. When that happy event occurs, she expects that Putin’s successor Alexei Navalny will appoint her as Information & Culture Minister. This would win the support of Joe Biden and Boris Johnson, both of whom have become ardent admirers of the comely media personality after her 15 seconds of fame on a Russian television channel. Should Putin not oblige those predicting his imminent doom, the young lady is likely to earn the ire of ordinary Russians for embracing the views of western media so publicly. Following the same rulebook, prominent voices in the US who are talking truth to power such as Tulsi Gabbard or Tucker Carlson are being branded as traitors. Exactly the way those who protested against the US rush to disaster in Vietnam initially were. Tucker Carlson and Tulsi Gabbard need to be in the US Senate, which appears to be sinking in credibility as an independent wing of governance because of being programmed to follow the narrative presented by the White House and mainstream media. The rising blood lust against Russia has risen to such a pitch that voters are calling for yet more escalatory steps than the many carried out rather than favouring the path towards an outcome that would protect the world from the damage that the present course would cause just a few months from now.Decades ago, after the Iraq invasion of 2003 against Saddam Hussein, this writer had the privilege of meeting Andrew Marshall, one of the finest strategic minds of the 20th century. In the Pentagon, when presented with the view by an ordinary Indian professor that US troops in uniform should leave Iraq’s population centres alone and concentrate on border security (or that having a US Administrator rather than a lifelong citizen of Iraq was certain to create public resentment at such alien domination), Marshall was attentive, while others were dismissive of such conclusions at the early stage of the US-UK (aka the former colonial power) occupation of Iraq. Media in the US and in other countries active in the post-invasion occupation of Iraq uniformly bought the NATO narrative, much as they are doing now in the case of the war in Ukraine. Labelling dissenting voices as treason and adopting the same degree of objectivity as Pravda in its heyday are certain steps towards disaster. During the Vietnam War, when it became clear that metrics of success such as body counts were giving a misleading impression of the conflict’s trajectory, Senator J. William Fulbright held hearings in which he brought to account the White House for the war. It is difficult to imagine Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell showing similar moral courage. If the McConnell was the lapdog of President Trump, Shumer has accepted that role under President Biden. Their absence of moral courage fused with a paucity of common sense is ensuring that the US lead NATO towards a disaster that may scar the remainder of this century. Were Biden as fortunate as Clinton, he may in time leave the White House in the hands of a Republican successor and escape responsibility for the catastrophe begun under his watch, in the manner Bill Clinton dodged the responsibility for nurturing terrorism in Afghanistan and in turbocharging the PRC economy through generous unilateral trade concessions that caused the trade deficit between China and the US to soar. Clinton left the White House in the nick of time, although Biden and his party may not be so lucky. Latest around the time last year that Biden re-installed the Taliban in power in Afghanistan last year, the folly of his policy on Afghanistan and Russia will become inescapable to voters. There seems no longer any point in trying to get across even a mildly alternative view than NATO “truth” to the Guardian, the New York Times or too many other publications. They claim to print “all the news that’s fit to print”, when what is meant by that is “all the news that NATO leaders considers fit to print”. Poor world.
Post a Comment