.The New Yorker’s big cover story reveals five uncomfortable truths about U.S. and Russia - The Intercept
The New Yorker is aggressively touting its 13,000-word cover story
on Russia and Trump that was bylined by three writers, including the magazine’s Editor-in-Chief, David Remnick. (...) a large bulk of the article is devoted to what has now become standard – and very profitable – fare among East Coast news magazines: feeding Democrats the often-xenophobic, hysterical Russia-phobia for which they have a seemingly insatiable craving. (...)
But buried within the article are several interesting, uncomfortable, and often-looked facts about Putin, Trump and Democrats. Given that these points are made by a liberal media organ that is vehemently anti-Trump, within an article dispensing what has become the conventional Democratic wisdom on Russia, it is well worth highlighting them:1. Obama and Clinton have radically different views on Russia.
Clinton, however, had a much different view of all this. She was often critical of Obama’s refusal
to pursue aggression and belligerence in his foreign policy, particularly in Syria. (...)
One can, of course, side with the Clinton wing on the ground that the U.S. has been too soft on Russia, but what should not be suppressed – and what the New Yorker article makes clear – is that the hawkish views on Russia now dominant (even obligatory) in the Democratic Party were exactly what Obama resisted up until the last day that he left office. (...)2. The risk of a new Cold War is very real and very dangerous.
The most astonishing aspect of the post-election discourse on Russia is how little attention is paid to the risks of fueling a new Cold War, let alone of military confrontation between the two nuclear-armed powers. (...)3. The U.S. media refuses to say if the U.S. interferes in Russia’s domestic politics.
What makes this steadfast silence so bizarre is that there’s virtually no question that it is true. Some have noted the 1996 Time Magazine cover
boasting of how U.S. advisors helped Boris Yeltsin with Russia’s presidency. And, of course, the U.S. has continually and repeatedly interfered in the domestic political processes, including democratic elections, of more countries than one can count. (...)4. The U.S. Government still has provided no evidence of its theories about Russian hacking.
That Putin ordered Russian hacking of the DNC’s and John Podesta’s emails in order to help Trump win is now such consecrated orthodoxy that it’s barely acceptable in Decent Company to question it. But that obscures, by design, the rather important fact that the U.S. Government, while repeatedly issuing new reports making these claims, has still never offered any actual evidence
for them. Even the New Yorker article, which clearly views the theory as valid, acknowledges this fact.5. Fixating on Russia continues to be used to distract from systemic failures of U.S. elites.
Denouncing the autocratic abuses of foreign adversaries such as Putin has long been the go-to tactic to distract attention from the failures and evils of U.S. actions — including the unpleasant fact that support for the world’s worst despots has long been, and continues to be
, a central precept of U.S. policy. (...)
[T]he primary reason for Trump, for Brexit, and for growing right-wing über-nationalism throughout Europe is that prevailing neoliberal policies have destroyed the economic security and future of hundreds of millions of people, rendering them highly susceptible to scapegoating and desperate, in a nothing-to-lose sort of way, for any type of radical change, no matter how risky or harmful that change might be. But all of that gets to be ignored, all of the self-reckoning is avoided, as long we get ourselves to believe that some omnipotent foreign power is behind it all. (...)Full article
#military industrial complex
The most astonishing aspect of the discourse on Russia is how little attention is paid to the risks of fueling a new Cold War.