a If Putin’s policy is not like the West, this does not mean that it is risky and harmful to Russian interests, that it is wrong and is aimed against neighbors. Analyzing the work of American propaganda, the author concludes that their far-fetched ideas need to intimidate Russia and save Europe’s submission to Washington.
The Russian constitutional referendum in which the majority of citizens supported the state and the political course of Vladimir Putin, completely expected, was for some Western media and analysts with a pretext to unleash a new avalanche of criticism the Russian leader. In fact, this is nothing new, and all has been many times said before. However, always catches the eye is the tenacity with which these are mostly unfounded assessment. This is especially noticeable when new and young forces take over from senior colleagues already exhausted antiputinizmom, because many of them Russian President, who twenty years ago they heralded the imminent sunset long ago “spent” well-deserved retirement.
This time attention was attracted by the famous brends Hal, the son of the famous American Professor of history Henry Brands, the peak of a career that peaked in 2009. Then, in a group of 11 colleagues he visited the White house where he shook hands with the US President and future Nobel laureate Barack Obama. Hal — the diplomat received a doctorate at Stanford and Yale, a fairly young man, which is gaining its place in the circles of the American intellectual elite. In addition, Hal Brends leads a column in the American Agency “Bloomberg”. Recently he was asked to write something for the Polish website “Forsal”, owner is “ringer Axel Springer” — Swiss-German media Empire with 3100 staff in Poland, Hungary, Serbia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Dr. Brends published in “Forsale” an analytical article entitled “Russia will go further West? Putin may go to great risks, and the West underestimates”.
The new rhetoric in the spirit of the cold war taking shape
Given that the portal “Forsal” very influential and specializiruetsya on financial and business analyses, the list of claims to Putin, emerged from the pen of this highly prolific columnist, is quite interesting. Hal Brends usually writes about the relationship between the US and China, but his critical eye does not shy away from Putin, Viktor Orban, Emanuel Makron, Boris Johnson and Kim Jong UN. This expert, among other things, writes about why Russia could trigger a nuclear war in the Baltic, as the US will pull out of the middle East from the hands of Putin, and predicts that America and Europe together will win new cold war, and the like. We can say thatto the same as the Russian leader, Hal Brends hates the American President Donald trump. Of course, at the head of the United States, he would prefer to see Joe Biden.
All this information about the author would be completely insignificant and unimportant, if he wasn’t a typical representative of a wave of relatively young and highly educated Western experts, which act primarily on European public opinion rhetoric of the cold war, although many believed that she will leave in the past after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. But it turned out that these “experts” are today more popular and influential than ever before. The only thing that they are not profitable, so it is significantly changed since that time circumstances. The West is no longer monolithic and it does not support US, as before, but in the East there is a new global factor — China. While XI Jinping and Vladimir Putin less fit in once the actual “scheme” of analysts.
Undoubtedly, for these experts (protagonists of American global leadership and “exceptionalism”) everywhere in Europe, especially the East, wide open media and other platforms. There, they explain to individuals and States, how to live, warning, what great danger threatens them from the East. In this case the other side to reach to the audience only in the interpretation of such authors. Although most of these arguments, there is no question at all. Not all their views are wrong and inaccurate, but they are definitely one-sided, and for understanding global processes, lack of data and different approaches. The main problem is that on the basis of these opinions is formed public opinion in European countries and their policies that in some extent dangerous.
Says Brends, the West continues to underestimate Putin’s “strategic ambition and tactical opportunism,” as the Russian leader is not afraid to take high risks for the sake of “geopolitical achievements”, which makes him a dangerous opponent. Well justified by “the Russian threat”, and Putin is presented as the enemy of the West. However, the real thing not mentioned. Not saying that the Kremlin wants to neutralize anti-American influence in Europe, especially the aggressive expansion of NATO, which popularize the dimension of Brends. Silent and about the fact that Moscow considers the European countries are potential allies and partners. Brends interprets the policy of the Kremlin superficially and falsely, claiming that it is risky. Although it is the absence of risky and ill-considered steps, the most characteristic of all previous work of President Putin. Every action in the domestic and international arena was deeply thoughtful and RAschiano for maximum long-term effect with minimum damage and cost.
Slaboda faith of Europe in “American freedom and democracy”
Of course, Brends did not forget to criticize and “the other” Donald trump, accusing him of weakening ties between the United States and Europe, but rather in that “it undermines U.S. defense commitment to the security of the old continent”. Thus, he supposedly plays into the hands of Putin and weakens the institutions that prevent the implementation of Russian ambitions. Brends calls for the “blockade of Russia”, fearing that Putin uses “KGB strategy” to foment conflicts within political camps. Brends believes that “Russia has not brought liberal democracy to the crisis”, but Putin knows how this crisis is to aggravate how to discredit ideological competitors and to sow discord between configured against a group. The analyst lists the methods used by the Russian leader, including the spread of misinformation, which he, in particular, undermines democratic elections in the West. And again the question arises: how such a weak Russia may provoke discord and undermine elections within the “strong and democratic West”? Or the West is not so strong as it seems, and Russia is not so weak, if she turns out like this? Or, more likely, we are dealing with a false and fictitious ideas which need to be intimidated by Russia, because the only way to save Europe’s submission to Washington, whose economic, ideological and political power is weakening.
Some Europeans wondered whether they actually “make policy decisions and to enter into geopolitical unions freely and without outside pressure”? Take, for example, the gas pipeline “Nord stream — 2” and “Turkish stream”. Washington imposes sanctions against European companies that does not hurt the United States, did not violate any law or regulation. Sanctions is due only to the fact that these projects contrary to American interests. How can you blame Russia for the fact that it pursues its own interests, or, perhaps, only to her it’s forbidden, and declared a “threat and aggression”? Those who believe such experts as Brends, you can ask another question: how “weak Russia” can be in the heart of Europe to build as many as three mega-gas pipeline, despite fierce resistance, threats and sanctions by the “strong America”? Perhaps Russia is not as weak as they claim? Or, perhaps, the European belief in “American freedom and democracy” is no longer so strong, and Europeans increasingly think their own head? It is not excluded that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
the Main mistake in the analysis
If the policy of Vladimir Putin don’t like nasty��Cam from the West, it does not mean that it is risky and harmful to Russian interests, and especially that it is wrong. Similarly, this does not mean that it automatically is directed against neighbors and European countries. The main mistake and Brenda, and all similar analysts is that they want to convince: if Russia defends its vital interests, they are doing something against the will of America, and then her actions are really risky and harmful, as “punishment from Washington” is inevitable. If Putin and thought he probably never would have run for the presidency, and sat in the Kremlin would any obedient “American friends” who would have believed the theories of Brands. But effortlessly Putin demonstrates every day that Russia can only speak as equals, and the “serious threat” of the West reacts mostly with humor and laughter. And so it continued for 20 years.
Brends recalls that after the amendment of the Constitution, Putin may rule until 2036, and also leads the speculation about what Russia pays terrorists in Afghanistan for each dead American. After reading all of this, the average citizen will conclude that Putin is still 16 years will kill innocent Americans around the world, if Russia is not stopped.
“the coronavirus Pandemic has further exacerbated the rivalry with China, but the threat from Russia, which is weaker and more aggressive China, aren’t going away,” concludes the expert.
He explains that Russia is weak and unable to mount a serious challenge, as China or the Soviet Union, but that it is “aggressively enjoys limited opportunities to recover the lost influence and destroy the international order led by the United States.” According to experts, it will make the world chaotic and dangerous place, where scour “international predators”. This “predation” Brends sees, first of all, on the Russian border, where Putin supposedly going to restore the sphere of influence. It will supposedly include the territory of the former USSR and of Eastern Europe. In addition to “the invasion of Georgia and Ukraine” as evidence of his allegations, the author cites “strengthening the forces of Moscow in the East wing of NATO.” Thus, the Kremlin wants to prevent American interests and call into question the main achievement of the United States after the cold war, “free, peaceful and United Europe where States may make policy decisions and to engage in geopolitical alliances freely and without outside pressure”.
Summarizing all the above, I understand that Brends calls for decisive action against Russia, because the threat “will not disappear”. And then there are contradictions. For example, as the “weak Russia” could pose a serious threat even to NATO? Than it can threaten? Armed attack “with��free and United Europe”, which takes its decisions without the pressure of America? Maybe it is, but this EA does not explain why NATO, in violation of all treaties with the Kremlin, came to the Russian border and why because of this, Moscow had to “strengthen their hand”? Brends never wondered whether Russia strengthens its forces just because of the expansion of NATO up to her borders and if she saw the danger in that?
Do in response to such calls for “decisive action” against itself, Putin will disband the army and send the military home, or, on the contrary it will continue to “strengthen the strength”? Perhaps even Brends understands that the answers to these questions are obvious. Anyone who wants a stable and secure Europe, must understand that it can be reached only walking on the path of agreements and compromises, as well as reducing overall tension and reducing any broad military presence. The strengthening of the position of the American military machine will not help here. Anyone familiar with Russian history and mentality, you know that Russia originally live by the principle, which is ascribed to Alexander Nevsky, “who with a sword to us will come, from a sword will perish”. This ancient Covenant Russians are not subjected to the slightest doubt.
