US and Russia: Geopolitical Opposites

US and Russia: Geopolitical Opposites

by Stephen Lendman

Geopolitical differences between both countries are stark – and irreconcilable because Washington wants it this way, a bipartisan consensus, lunatics in both parties more overtly anti-Russian than their less extremist counterparts.

Regime change is longstanding US policy for almost a century – since the Bolsheviks ousted the Romanovs. 

Truman era diplomat George Kennan introduced the concept of containment, calling Soviet Russia inherently expansionist. Cold War politics followed.

It continues under Obama. Putin understands, earlier saying “(w)e have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today.”  

Western nations are “constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it, and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy.”

His call for Washington to end its Cold War “hysteria,” recognize inviolable Russian sovereignty, and respect its national interests fell on deaf ears.

Relations between both countries are at their lowest ebb since post-WW II communist witch-hunts. Lunatics in Washington risk direct confrontation. The threat of possible WW III was never greater – especially if war goddess Hillary Clinton or a hardcore Republican neocon replaces Obama. 

John Kerry claiming “agreement (reached with Russia) on some fundamental principles” belies a deep rift between both nations, especially on Syria and Ukraine, each country charting a different course – Putin good sense diplomacy v. Obama’s confrontational brinksmanship and endless wars.

Take pronouncements from Washington with a grain of salt. They’re not what they seem. On Tuesday, Defense Department spokesman Peter Cook said Defense Secretary Ashton Carter directed his staff to “open lines of communication with Russia on de-confliction” – to prevent policies of both countries on Syria from conflicting with each other.

“The purpose of these de-confliction discussions will be to ensure that ongoing coalition air operations are not interrupted by any future Russian military activity, to ensure the safety of coalition aircrews and to avoid misjudgment and miscalculation,” said Cook.

“We do not want misjudgment and miscalculation. We do not want an accident to take place.” 

Washington is terrified about the prospect of an Russian, Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian (and possibly Chinese) coalition to defeat Islamic State terrorists will subvert its strategy to support them – using them as foot soldiers against Assad, bombing Syrian targets, its claim about battling ISIS entirely fabricated.

Opening lines of communication with Russia has nothing to do with softening hardline US policy, everything to do with containment – wanting Moscow prevented from defeating Obama administration policy in Syria or anywhere else.

Russia is providing Assad with weapons, training and humanitarian aid – fulfilling its contractual obligations, in full compliance with international law, polar opposite US policy. Ahead of his UN address, Putin was explicit telling CBS’ 60 Minutes:

“We act based on the United Nations Charter, i.e. the fundamental principles of modern international law, according to which this or that type of aid, including military assistance, can and must be provided exclusively to the legitimate government of one country or another, upon its consent or request, or upon the decision of the United Nations Security Council.”

“(A)t no time in the past, now or in the future has or will Russia take any part in actions aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government” of any nation.

He urged all countries “to respect the sovereignty of other states, including Ukraine. Respecting the sovereignty means preventing coups, unconstitutional actions and illegitimate overthrowing of the legitimate government” – a clear indictment of longstanding US policy.

In his UN address, Putin ruled out use of Russian ground forces in Syria. He proposed international unity to combat and defeat the Islamic State. 

An effective bombing campaign is needed working cooperatively with Syria’s military – polar opposite Washington’s phony one, supporting its proxy IS foot soldiers. Russia is willing to participate with other nations.

It fundamentally opposes efforts to remove Assad. Syrians alone have the right to choose who’ll lead them, Putin stresses. Foreign powers have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries – for any reason except in self-defense if attacked.

Irresponsible Russia bashing continues relentlessly. New York Times editorial policy is deplorable, willfully lying to readers, suppressing vital truths – turning truth on its head, claiming Putin’s sensible proposal for international unity against ISIS “could easily lead to an escalation in the conflict, frustrating already-dwindling hopes for a diplomatic resolution…”

Washington wants no diplomatic resolution other than Assad’s unconditional surrender, replacing him with a pro-Western puppet.

The Times irresponsibly claimed Putin’s real aim is to “establish (Russia’s) most important foothold in the Middle East in decades…not necessarily” confront ISIS as top priority.

It quoted anti-Russian NATO commander General Philip Breedlove, saying Moscow “wants to take the world’s eyes away from what they’re doing in Ukraine.”

It wants “warm-water ports and airfield capabilities in the eastern Mediterranean” and Assad kept in power. “And then, after all that, they will do some counter-ISIL work in order to legitimize their approach in Syria.”

Fact: Russia wants peace in Ukraine and Syria. Obama and hawkish generals like Breedlove want endless wars, continued mass slaughter and destruction.

The Times quoted a number of other anti-Russian neocons – no independent voices explaining what readers need to know.

US Central Command spokesman Col. Patrick Ryder expressed concern about Russia launching air strikes against “moderate Syrian opposition groups,” claiming they’re “key to pushing ISIL back.”

There are no moderate forces. Anti-Assad elements are imported ISIS and other takfiri terrorists. Claims otherwise are part of the grand deception throughout years of conflict. Don’t expect NYT editors, columnists, correspondents or contributors to explain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Visit his blog site at 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Source Article from

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes