Obama,
Putin And The U.S. Election
By Thomas Riggins
March 09, 2016
"Information
Clearing House"
- Why is Obama deliberately stirring up old Cold War
tensions with Russia by ordering saber rattling by
the Pentagon and our puppet military alliance Nato?
Professor Steven Cohen, writing in The Nation
(2-29-16) says Obama is escalating the tensions with
Russia in an unprecedented manner not seen since the
days of Nazi Germany. These hostile actions are
being basically ignored by the mass media and none
of the presidential candidates in either party have
addressed them in the debates except indirectly
(Sanders and Clinton supporting NATO, Trump
mentioning he wants to make a "deal" with Putin).
The issue is Obama's decision to increase by 400%
military expenditures and deployments on or near the
Russian border by the U.S. and NATO. Such a huge
concentration of Western military power on the
Russian border has not been seen in modern times --
not even at the height of the Cold War. Cohen says
Russia will have to respond by its own build up
including the positioning of advanced missiles. Thus
the whole of Eastern Europe will become a tinderbox
increasing the probability of a regional war or
worse if some minor incident flares up.
This is, I might add, wholly unnecessary and
reckless behavior on the part of Obama and his
generals (the type of behavior a future President
Cruz or Rubio are characterized of being capable of
initiating). Why is this coming at the very time
Russia is trying to de-escalate tensions with the
U.S.?
The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the
Iran deal and in trying to bring about a truce in
Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA
"covert" weapons deals with jihadists against their
ally Assad the legally UN recognized government),
and in calming down the situation in Ukraine by a
cease fire (another intervention initiated by the
U.S.- E.U. role in overthrowing the legally elected
government in that country and the installation of
an ultraright wing antiRussian
regime.
Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all
these international problems to Russian aggression
and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So
while we play around with farcical political debates
and a news media that misinforms rather than informs
Obama stealthily builds up the aggressive
capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or
unconsciously, further endangers the peace of the
world and the future of humanity.
The Left is falling down on the job of warning the
working class of the dangers it faces in the coming
election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama
legacy and will no doubt continue the march towards
more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has
embarked upon ever since Korea. The Republican
candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever
wins in November the big losers will be the working
class and the minorities who will continue to be
abused and exploited by the U.S. ruling
Establishment.
The Left has, however, done its duty in one respect.
There is a slight possibility the dire consequences
enumerated above could be avoided or alleviated and
that would be the election of Bernie Sanders as
president. This event would open up progressive
political action outside of the control of the
Establishment and could lead to a democratic
renaissance in the U.S. The Left - Progressive
movement has solidly backed Sanders (aside from some
fringe elements). Unfortunately, the Left cannot
agree on a Plan B. HRC's election would be a victory
for the Establishment and there is no Third Party
that the Left is willing to unite behind.
This military build up is part of the profit
generating foreign policy of the Military Industrial
Complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of
dollars in "defense" spending to the private coffers
of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt
a pro peace agenda and come out against the U.S.-
NATO build up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on
this issue but he can be more easily pressured to
change as cutting the military budget frees up money
for the progressive changes to reduce income
inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to
the Establishment. What is to be done?
Thomas Riggins is a university lecturer (philosophy)
and independent journalist in NYC. |