‘Words
Are Also Deeds’: Unverified Stories and the
Growing Risk of War With Russia
The US narratives for which there are as of yet
no facts could lead to direct military conflict
between Washington and Moscow.
By Stephen F. Cohen
Nation contributing editor
Stephen F. Cohen and John
Batchelor continue their weekly
discussions of the new US-Russia
Cold War.
April
13/14, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- "The
Nation"-
Cohen argues that the American political-media
establishment has embraced two fraught
narratives for which there is still no public
evidence, only “intel” allegations. One, “Kremlingate,”
as it is being called, is that Russian President
Putin ordered a hacking of the Democratic
National Committee and disseminated e-mails
found there to help put Donald Trump in the
White House. The other is that Syrian President
Assad, Putin’s ally, ordered last week’s
chemical-weapons attack on Syrian civilians,
including young children. A third faith-based
narrative, promoted by MSNBC in particular, is
now emerging linking the other two: that Trump’s
recent missile attack on a Syrian military air
base was actually a Putin-Trump plot to free the
new American president from the constraints of
“Kremlingate” investigations and enable him to
do Putin’s bidding in matters of US national
security.
Cohen
points out that in addition to the absence of
any actual evidence for these allegations, there
is no logic. The explanation that Putin “hated
Hillary Clinton” for protests that took place in
Moscow in 2011 is based on a misrepresentation
of that event. And why would Assad resort to the
use of chemical weapons, thereby risking all the
military, political, and diplomatic gains he has
achieved in the past year and half, and
considering that he had Russian air power at his
disposal as an alternative? And the emerging
sub-narrative that Putin lied in 2013, when he
and President Obama agreed that Assad would
destroy all of his chemical weapons, is based on
another factual misrepresentation. It was the
United Nations and its special agency that
verified the full destruction of those weapons,
not Putin. (This allegation is clearly intended
to discredit the one important act of US-Russian
cooperation, a vital one, in recent years.)
The
Russian adage “words are also deeds” is proving
true, it seems. Trump’s missile attack on
Russia’s ally Syria, despite its ramifying
dangers, may have had a domestic political
purpose—to debunk the narrative that is
crippling his presidency, that he is somehow
“Putin’s puppet.” If so, Cohen adds, the
American mainstream media, which has promoted
this narrative for months, is deeply complicit.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin, which watches closely as
these narratives unfold politically in
Washington, has become deeply alarmed, resorting
to its own fraught words. The No. 2 leader,
Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, declared that
US-Russian relations have been “ruined,” a
statement Cohen does not recall any previous
Soviet or post-Soviet leader ever having made.
Medvedev added that the two nuclear superpowers
are at “the brink” of war. Considering that
Medvedev is regarded as the leading pro-Western
figure in Putin’s inner circle, imagine what the
other side—state patriots, or nationalists, as
they are called—is telling Putin. Still more,
the Kremlin is saying that Trump’s missile
attack on Syria crossed Russia’s “red lines,”
with all the warfare implications that term has
in Washington as well. And flatly declaring the
mysterious use of chemical weapons in Syria a
“provocation,” Putin himself warned that forces
in Washington were planning more such
“provocations” and military strikes. In short,
while the Kremlin does not want and will not
start a war with the United States, it is
preparing for the possibility.
No
Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Cohen
and Batchelor ended their broadcast as Trump’s
new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had just
arrived in Moscow, before his talks with Russian
leaders began the following day. (Whether or not
Putin himself would met with Tillerson, or only
Foreign Minister Lavrov, was still uncertain.
Putin may be an authoritarian leader, the
“decider,” but influential forces in and around
the Kremlin were strongly against Putin meeting
with an American secretary of state in the
immediate aftermath of such a US “provocation.”)
Whatever the case, Cohen thinks Tillerson’s
visit is vitally important, at least for the
Russian leadership, and for Putin in particular.
Tillerson is well known to Putin and other
Kremlin leaders. On behalf of ExxonMobil, he
negotiated with them one of Russia’s largest
energy deals, which would grant access to the
nation’s vast oil resources beneath frozen seas.
Putin personally approved the deal, which oil
giants around the world sought. He would not
have done so had he not concluded that Tillerson
was a serious, highly competent man. (For this
achievement on behalf of a major American
corporation, Tillerson too has been slurred as
“Putin’s friend” in the American media.) The
Kremlin will therefore expect candid answers
from Tillerson to these questions related to the
looming issue of war or peace. Are the fact-free
narratives now prevailing in Washington the
determining factor in Trump’s policy toward
Russia? Are they the reason Trump committed the
“provocation” in Syria? Does this mean that
Trump no longer shares, or can support, Russia’s
essential strategic premise regarding the civil
and proxy war in Syria—that the overthrow of
Assad would almost certainly mean ISIS or
another terrorist army in Damascus, an outcome
that the Kremlin regards as a dire threat to
Russia’s own national security? And, most
fundamentally, who is making Russia policy in
Washington: President Trump or someone else?
Putin, it should be recalled, asked the same
question publicly about President Obama, when
the agreement Putin and Obama negotiated for
military cooperation in Syria was sabotaged by
the US Department of Defense.
The
answers that the very experienced Tillerson—he
had his own corporate global state department
and intelligence service at ExxonMobil—gives may
do much to determine whether or not the new Cold
War moves even closer to the “brink” of hot war,
certainly in Syria. Meanwhile, the American
mainstream media should return to their once
professed practice of rigorously fact-checking
their narratives with an understanding that
words are indeed also deeds.
Previous
installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com
Stephen
Frand Cohen is an American scholar and professor
emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton
University and New York University.
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)