"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth.... [Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]
Russian President Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath at his third inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2012.
The
neocons and liberal hawks who dominate the U.S. foreign policy and
media establishment are pushing the world toward a nuclear showdown with
Russia as few people hear a comprehensive response from the other side,
an imbalance that a new Russian documentary addresses, writes Gilbert
Doctorow.
Without mincing words, the new Russian documentary World Order
is a devastating critique of U.S. global hegemony justified in the name
of "democracy promotion" and "human rights" ever since the fall of the
Soviet Union in 1992.
It is directly in line with Russian President Vladimir Putin's first
repudiation of the American unipolar world issued in his speech to the
Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and his further, ever more
explicit exposés in a succession of speeches that challenged specific
manifestations of "American exceptionalism."
World Order, which is now posted on YouTube (in Russian) and at another site (with English subtitles), illustrates through graphic footage and the testimony of independent world authorities the tragic consequences, the spread of chaos and misery, resulting from U.S.-engineered "regime change" and "color revolutions,"
of which the violent overthrow of the Yanukovich regime in Ukraine in
February 2014 is only the latest example. (Some of the highlights from
Putin's interview are translated into English here and here.)
The title of the film follows on Putin's address to the 70th anniversary
gathering of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015
which had as its central message that world order rests on international
law, which in turn has as its foundation the UN Charter.
By flouting the Charter and waging war without the sanction of
the UN Security Council, starting with the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999
and continuing with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 up to its illegal
bombings in Syria today, the United States and its NATO allies have
shaken the foundations of international law.
As set out in World Order, Putin's identification of the root
cause of the failure to bring the U.S. back to reason lies not in given
individuals, like Barack Obama or George W. Bush, but in the mentality
of Western, and in particular American elites formed by their impunity,
their ability to walk away from the catastrophes their policies create
without any feeling of responsibility, without being held to account.
Their evasion of responsibility and failure to learn from error come
from being the richest and militarily most powerful nation on earth.
World Order presents dramatic evidence
of the brutality which flows from American policies when functioning if
flawed states are converted into failed states through color
revolutions, as has happened across the Middle East and North Africa
since the new millennium. We are shown Saddam Hussein's final
moments before execution, then the denunciation of this judicial murder
by Muammar Gaddafi before a laughing audience of Arab League deputies,
then the barbaric mob murder of Gaddafi himself followed by the exultant
face of Hillary Clinton after this triumph of U.S. foreign policy.
We also listen to Gaddafi's detailed prediction of the vast
flood of refugees and spread of jihadists in North Africa that would
follow should his regime be toppled. And we are given video footage from
the 2015 refugee flows into Europe with their mob scenes at state
borders that bear out those warnings.
Diverse Points of View
The foreign interviewees in World Order comprise an impressive
and diverse selection of leaders in various domains, including American
film director Oliver Stone; Thomas Graham, former National Security
Council director for Russia under George W. Bush and current managing
director at Kissinger Associates; former IMF Director Dominique
Strauss-Kahn; former Pakistan President Perwez Musharraf; former French
Foreign Minister Dominique Villepin; former Israeli President Shimon
Peres; Wikileaks founder Julian Assange; and deputy leader of the Die
Linke party in the German Bundestag Sahra Wagenknecht. Others, like UN
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, put in cameo appearances.
Strauss-Kahn, Musharraf and others charge that the U.S. plots
against and destroys foreign leaders who dare to oppose America's total
control over global flows of money, goods and people. Wagenknecht addresses the question of Germany's subservience to American Diktats and its de facto circumscribed sovereignty. The
statements support Putin's long-standing argument, reiterated in the
film, that the Western European allies of the U.S. are nothing more than
vassals.
Vladimir Putin's closing remarks about the place of nuclear arms in
Russia's military doctrine must not be played down. Saying aloud that
Russia has not and will not brandish its nuclear truncheon, is, in
effect, doing just that. All of this is of one piece with the way
Russia's aerospace forces have conducted their attacks in Syria on the
Islamic State and on the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad these past two months.
The use of heavy bombers flying 15,000 kilometers from the Kola
Peninsula, in northwest Russia along the Arctic Circle, with the help of
night-time in-flight refueling; the use of cruise missiles fired from
frigates in the Caspian Sea at distances of 1,300 km to targets in
Syria; and the use of cruise missiles launched from Russian submarines
in the Mediterranean have all had a political dimension far exceeding
military necessity in the Syrian theater: they demonstrate Russia's
capability of waging global war, including global nuclear war. These
actions are also depicted in the film.
Is World Order propaganda? It most certainly is. Is it directed primarily at the Russian domestic audience, as the Telegraph
newspaper insists? No. Like all of Putin's foreign policy addresses,
whether delivered abroad or at home, as in the Valdai Discussion Club,
whether issued with subtitles in English or not, its primary audience is in Washington, D.C. with a secondary audience in Brussels.
One may suppose that the purpose is not to touch off or accelerate an
arms race but, on the contrary, to bring the other side to its senses
and persuade it of 1) Russia's seriousness about defending militarily
what it sees as vital national interests and 2) its ability to deliver
massive destruction to an enemy even in the face of a possible first
nuclear strike, and so to reinstate the Mutually Assured Destruction
deterrence that America's global missile defense was supposed to cancel
out.
However, in World Order,Putin lists several areas of
common concern over which Russia is prepared to cooperate with the West.
Indeed these very same prospective areas of cooperation come up
repeatedly in the public writings and speeches of the relatively few
"fighters for peace" who are trying to draw the world community back
from the brink into some kind of détente.
Dangerous Clash
Yet, pulling that raisin out of cake is to seriously misunderstand the very clear message coming out of Russia: that
the destruction of world order by U.S.-led "democracy promotion" and
its spread of "universal values" will not be tolerated and that Russia
has set down certain red lines, such as against NATO expansion
into Ukraine or Georgia over which it will fight to the death using all
its resources. We ignore these messages at our peril.
As we enter the U.S. presidential electoral season and a vast number of
foreign policy and military advisers are emerging to give counsel to the
candidates on relations with Russia and other major powers in the hope
of securing high posts in the next U.S. administration, it is worth
looking again at the lessons of the summer and autumn of 2008, when what
became the "reset" policy was formulated, through April 2009 when its
implementation began.
That initiative took shape the last time that the United States and
Russia were on a course of confrontation leading straight to armed
conflict. The context was the Russian-Georgian war and the deployment of
U.S. naval forces off the coast of Abkhazia, poised to attack the
nearby Russian ground forces.
The imminent threat of war and the ongoing campaigning for presidential
elections in November formed a nexus of circumstances not very
dissimilar from where we are today when U.S. and allied air forces
compete for space in the skies above Syria with a substantial Russian
force that includes fighters, bombers and the most advanced air-defense
system in the Russian arsenal.
I have set out the origins of the reset policy in the 15-page chapter
entitled "Obama Changes US-Russian Relations" in my 2013 book Stepping Out of Line
to which I refer the reader for full details. Here I will limit myself
to several key facts and conclusions as they bear on our present
situation.
First among these key facts was the mobilization of America's political
and scientific elites to bring about a change in U.S. foreign policy
that would take us back from the brink of war. Many of the names which
came into play then are once again being summoned by the fighters for
peace to weigh in on the side of the angels.
The problem is that those who had created the conventional wisdom about
the role of the U.S. in the world were ill-prepared to go beyond
tinkering at the edges of that wisdom, resulting in the failure of reset
to go to the heart of the dispute with Russia and ultimately this led
to many tears of regret all around.
An Incomplete Reset
The starting point of what became the "reset" was the founding on Aug.
1, 2008, of the Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Russia under the aegis
of former Senators Chuck Hagel (Republican) and Gary Hart (Democrat),
setting the bipartisan course of the initiative. It had as its backers
the Nixon Center in Washington, a think tank whose Honorary Chairman was
former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It was also supported by the
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, a research center
within the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Members included former U.S. ambassadors to the USSR or Russia James
Collins, Jack Matlock and Thomas Pickering as well as former National
Security Council or Defense Department officials and top business
leaders, such as the former chairman of the world's largest insurance
company, Maurice Greenberg. Among those who worked closely with the
Commission either inside or outside were former Secretary of State
George Schultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former
Senator Sam Nunn.
Ultimately the Commission issued a 17-page report entitled "The Right
Direction for U.S. Policy toward Russia" which contained many of the
points taken up in the papers outlining reset which President Obama's
delegation signed off with the Russians when they met in London on April
1, 2009, on the sidelines of the first summit meeting between Obama and
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
The centerpiece of "reset" - as defined in the state papers signed in
London - was renewal of the 1994 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
(START) that was scheduled to expire in December 2009. It also called
for organizing "contacts between our two governments in a more
structured and regular way." And it went on to urge greater cooperation
between societies: more cultural exchanges, student exchanges,
scientific cooperation, and cooperation among NGOs.
START renewal was established as a priority of the Obama
administration's overall foreign policy, which called for stopping and
reversing deployment of nuclear arms and enforcing non-proliferation. In
the end, that objective was achieved. But in the end, that achievement
did nothing to prevent the outbreak of a new arms race and ever greater
risk of nuclear war among the great powers that we see today.
A major reason for this failure was the timidity of those calling for a new policy on Russia. The
report from the Commission assumed continuing U.S. hegemony in world
affairs. It stood by the policy of continuing expansion of NATO
membership, including to Ukraine and Georgia, and the only concession
was to slow down the timetable. It called for the continued roll-out of
the global missile defense shield.
While the authors urged ending U.S. restrictions on trade with Russia
and its admission to the World Trade Organization, they nonetheless
espoused the conventional wisdom on the dangers of Russia's dominant
position as energy supplier to Europe and came out in favor of building
gas pipelines to Europe skirting Russian territory and thereby
diversifying Europe's energy supplies at Russia's expense.
A New Security Architecture
The overriding Russian concern for a new security architecture to be put
in place in Europe that would bring them in from the cold received a
sympathetic if noncommittal response from the Commission. The proposals
in this regard put forward by President Medvedev in April 2008 should be
formally reviewed, they said, but without any specific recommendations.
With respect to "democracy promotion" in Russia, the Commission members
called for the volume of criticism of Russia to be turned down. They
also called for a show of decency by Americans in their dealings with
Russia.
Aside from the new strategic arms reduction treaty, Obama's reset came to naught.
It bears stressing that today's situation is more threatening than in 2008. Against
a background of shrill Information Warfare between Russia and the West,
the denigration of the Russian leadership and of the country in general
by the occupant of the Oval Office and by leading members of Congress
has advanced to levels unequaled in the worst days of the Cold War.
Meanwhile Russia's strategic military capabilities in both nuclear and
conventional warfare have advanced incredibly from the levels of 2008
when Western military observers expressed their satisfaction that the
performance of the Russian military did not seem much improved over the
days of the ill-fated Afghan war that brought down the Soviet Union.
Today, if we are to escape from the cycle of "resets" - from bitter
disappointment over souring of relations after a few landmark fruits of
cooperation and then the onset of new, heightened risks of nuclear war -
we must seize the nettle and resolve to address the underlying
problems of international relations that the Russian leadership cite,
most recently in the documentary film World Order.
Détente, i.e., relaxation of tensions and improved atmospherics, is only a good beginning, nothing more.
It's worth noting that the film's director and co-author is one
of the most intelligent and fair-minded presenters on Russian
television, Vladimir Soloviev, who is best known today for
prime-time evening debates on hot domestic and international issues in
which the "other side," whether Ukrainian or American or the Russian
opposition parties in the Duma, is always present in what amounts at
times to astonishing openness of discussion on live television, when it
does not descend into shouting matches.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics
and International Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an
active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent some time back then in the
U.S., where his activities included teaching economics at the University
of Alabama. If he is the author of propaganda, one can be certain it is
sophisticated and serves certain philosophical and ethical values, not individuals or power for power's sake.
The documentary was released by the state broadcaster Pervy Kanal on Dec. 20.
Gilbert Doctorow is the European Coordinator, American Committee for
East West Accord, Ltd. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future?
(August 2015) is available in paperback and e-book from Amazon.com and
affiliated websites.
