104 Shares 103



1

0







Elite political hysteria on a 1950s McCarthyite scale has erupted in response to President Trump’s summit and media conference with Russia’s President Putin. In truth, the hysteria was building even at the thought of a US president meeting with Putin rather than declaring war on the Russian regime for alleged meddling in the 2016 US elections. But as with 1950s McCarthyism, there is more heat than light in these denunciations of the Trump administration, however abhorrent its philosophy, politics and foreign policy.

Allegations of “meddling” and “collusion” - the latter has now been quietly dropped - have dogged the Trump camp since early 2016 when the FBI began its use of at least one informer - a Cambridge university professor - to provide information on campaign staff meetings with Russian officials. The latest episode – impeccably timed just ahead of Trump’s meeting with Putin - saw Mueller indict 12 Russian intelligence officials for allegedly conspiring to hack the Democratic National Committee’s server and Clinton campaign head John Podesta’s email account, passing the contents to Wikileaks for mass exposure of the Clinton campaign’s sabotage of the leftist Bernie Sanders Democratic primaries efforts. Not one word has come from the “with-Trump-or-with-the-FBI” brigade as to the contents of the server or Podesta emails - which show DNC meddling - nay, outright cheating - against the Sanders socialist campaign against Wall Street and the big money politics of the Clinton clique.

The problem with the anti-Trump hysteria is that it is largely baseless in terms of hard evidence; and secondly, there is no claim that the meddling had any effect on the actual election result; and we are asked to back the FBI and CIA - even though both agencies have a vile record against democratic movements all over the world including overthrow of democratically elected governments. Recall the FBI’s role in the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war protests; the CIA from its inception in Iran, Nicaragua, across the Middle East and Caribbean, in Europe including infiltrated the Labour Party in the 1950s and 1960s; in drone warfare; in intelligence dossiers of dubious quality that unequivocally but falsely showed weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, justifying aggressive warfare and the slaughter and displacement of millions of people across that hapless country and region. The US is the biggest meddler in world history and remains so today under the Trump dispensation.

Yet all we are offered is a choice between the authoritarian populist Trump, and the increasingly right-wing Democratic party and the FBI and CIA. This will likely polarise the US electorate even more and strengthen Trump’s core support and increase the likelihood of a Trump victory in the November 2018 mid-terms.

So why the hysteria? Is Trump really a Russian agent or puppet? How friendly is he to Russia and Putin in practice?

Trump doesn’t help himself as he’s so fixated on his political base - his pre-NATO summit rhetoric was entirely aimed at his core voters so he could sound like the Great Leader telling NATO to shape up or ship out, while signing the final communique that placed Russia squarely in NATO’s and the US’ gun sights. Take a look at the “30 times 4” concept for example that was a key feature of the communique (NATO is gearing up for a rapid deployment force that can assemble and deploy, in 30 days or less, 30 warplane squadrons, 30 warships, and 30 military divisions to anywhere in its region). Look at the ramped-up war games in the Baltics. And what did Trump say about the Germans’ new pipeline to import Russian oil and gas? That it would strengthen Russia’s coffers and weaken NATO and the European Union.

Unfortunately, too much media comment has elided the content of the NATO communique in favour of covering in great detail the rhetoric deployed by President Trump. And NATO leaders, many of whom want to bounce member states into increased military spending, have used Trump’s fiery denunciations to increase momentum to that end. European NATO members increased their overall spend on their militaries by 5% in 2017-18 – an additional $41 billion. (Russia’s entire military budget is a mere 8% of that of NATO’s, and less than that of France alone). Too many commentators have already forgotten the contents of the National Security Strategy of December 2017 and the National Defense Strategy of January 2018 – both of which placed Russia and China squarely on the table as America’s, and the West’s, strategic rivals seeking to displace the US’ global hegemony.

The hysterical response from the Democratic Party, most of the media and several key Republicans, displays a core disagreement with Trump’s alleged warmth towards Russia: fury at Russian meddling in America’s domestic affairs is a part of this but not necessarily the main problem. The principal issue is which of Russia or China is the greater more immediate threat to US hegemony and how should it be dealt with. Trump clearly believes China is the greater threat, especially economically but also militarily, and has intensified aspects of the Obama pivot to Asia, and recently-announced trade tariffs are part of the Trump strategy, departing from the TPP strategy favoured by Obama, Clinton and much of the GOP’s leadership.

Yet, Trump is hardly a friend of Putin’s, as shown above. But he has dared to tactically depart from the broader goals of all parties and mainstream media – a strategy to pressurise both Russia and China even more relentlessly at the same time. Trump seems to want to pressure China more intensely while loosening the latter’s bonds with Russia – a divide and rule approach. Steve Bannon may have been dismissed from the White House but his way of thinking remains significant. Bannon recently noted how brilliant is Trump’s strategy to divide Russia and China.

There is nothing progressive, democratic, or peaceable in principle in either approach – both risk major confrontations with nuclear armed states with the aim of subordinating them to US power. At the trade and European cohesion levels, that explains Trump’s strategy with the EU too – weaken the EU, support ‘hard’ Brexit, and weaken both to empower the US’ hand in trade negotiations. Trump’s opponents fear that weakening the EU might endanger NATO, strengthen Russia’s hand and encourage greater Russian assertiveness.

The Democratic Party’s leadership has just one plan to oppose Trump – it hardly involves challenging his Supreme Court nominations, nor that of CIA head Gina Haspell, not his corporate tax cuts, corporate deregulation, nor border security and deportation of undocumented immigrants. After all, President Obama deported more such immigrants – 2.7 million – than all previous presidents put together, and securitised and linked up ICE to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Democrat’s only sustained anti-Trump strategy is on the Russia front – to explain their defeat in 2016, to protect any challenge to their preferred global hegemonic strategy by preventing any dialogue with Russia.

*(Russia-US talks with participation of delegation members at a working breakfast. Image credit: Kremlin.ru)