THE EMERGENCE OF THE THINKING OF POLITICIANS: PUTIN’S SUPPORTERS IN THE UNITED STATES

By | May 22, 2019

What was she guilty of and are there any other politicians and public figures in the United States calling for friendship with Russia?

It is well known how difficult it is in the US for politicians who hold a moderate position against Russia. If the usual telephone conversation of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, democratic Congressman mark Pokan calls “treason”, what about the figures of a smaller scale? In 2016, American politicians vied “handed over” in social networks of their colleagues who have ever met or photographed with Vladimir Putin. It would be funny if it wasn’t so disturbing.

Against this background, there are just a few people whose position radically distinguishes them from the rest of us establishment. One of them is a Democratic Congressman from Hawaii, us presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.

Last Friday, the Internet publication Daily Beast accused Tulsi Gabbard That her election campaign is supported by “Putin’s apologists”. Gabbard is no stranger: at one time she was subjected to derogatory criticism for a meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for sharp criticism of the idea of establishing a “no-fly zone” in the Syrian sky, for calls for the immediate withdrawal of our army from Iraq, etc.

Who are these Putin’s henchmen, undermining, according to the Daily Beast, American freedom and democracy? Professor of New York and Princeton universities, a prominent Sovietologist and publicist Stephen Cohen, who donated to the election Fund Gabbard just over a thousand dollars. Head of the Center for civic initiatives (San Francisco) Sharon Tennyson, who made at least five donations and reached the statutory limit of individual donations to an individual candidate. Actress Susan Sarandon, known for her sharp rejection of the war in Iraq, has invested $ 500 in the Gabbard Fund. And someone named “goofy Grapes”, allegedly a member of the Comedy TV show Redacted Tonight and had offered $ 1,000.

“Support from prominent Pro-Russian voices in the United States is a small part of the total amount of money that Gabbard received, but it clearly shows how much it deviates from the line of his party on such a controversial and important issue [relations with Russia],” – says the online publication.

For this level of analysis and study of the topic overseas journalists can once again put nine out of ten points on the scale of “donkeys, far-fetched.” However, nothing new: a few years ago, during the crash of the Malaysian “Boeing” in the Donbass, the influential New York Times in the first hours after the incident suggested that behind him are “Pro-Russian separatists”, and hence Russia. The article did not mention specific facts and names. Moreover, the terms “possible” and “likely” were used. However, six months later, other authors, referring to this article, did not hesitate to write, “as convincingly proved by the New York Times”, Russia is to blame. All – information and propaganda myth has found flesh.

Tulsi Gabbard can no longer get rid of the stigma of Putin’s supporter – despite the fact that she is, first of all, a patriot of America and the national interests of her country.

A few days ago, Gabbard received an invitation to George Stephanopoulos ‘ popular political show on ABC News. There she tried to prove to the Americans that they over and over again become victims of deception, false news that the accusations against her of Pro-Russian sympathies distract from the very important topic of the deterioration of relations between the US and the nuclear powers in the face of Russia and China.

Gabbard gave the example of the sensational story of a false missile attack on Hawaii in January last year. Residents of the island, received on their phones messages about a cruise missile and a warning about the immediate search for shelter, experienced a state of shock. “Today we are at greater risk of nuclear war than ever before in history, and we need to understand what the consequences are, – the Congresswoman said. – If I am elected, I will put an end to counterproductive and wasteful wars for regime change in other countries and try to end the new cold war and the nuclear arms race.”

At the time, Gabbard voluntarily joined the army, is a major of us national guard and has a track record of two trips to Iraq. Therefore, when Gabbard calls trump “not to rattle weapons in Venezuela”, but to sit down and negotiate with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea on a number of urgent world problems – she knows what she is talking about. In 2016, Gabbard earned the respect of the left wing of the Democrats for leaving the promising post of Deputy Chairman of the National Committee of the Democratic party and supported the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders.

What does it get in return for its balanced position? The glossy magazine Vanity Fair publishes an extremely unsuccessful photo of Tulsi Gabbard and calls it “a renegade Democrat, known for his friendly relations with Bashar al-Assad.”

In many respects Ms. Gabbard, Tulsi remained a true black sheep among the rest of us lawmakers. The scale of it can be compared with Dana Rohrabacher, an American Republican politician, who for almost thirty years represented his California constituency in us Congress. Rohrabacher never hid his warm attitude to Russia, supported the referendum in Crimea, called the anti-Russian sanctions “the embodiment of hypocrisy” and called for the abolition of the “Magnitsky Law”.

In line with the Rohrabacher should put the father and son Flooring: Ron and Rand. Senior has long been a member of the House of representatives and despite the fact that repeatedly nominated as a candidate for President of the United States, on political convictions is a pronounced libertarian, criticizing the large-scale our military spending and anti-Russian hysteria against tens of thousands of NATO soldiers at the borders of Russia. During the presidential debate of Republican candidates in 2015, Senator Rand Paul advocated the idea of us non-interference in the Syrian crisis and the importance of establishing a dialogue with Moscow. Unfortunately, his position did not find support from American voters against the background of bright statements of other candidates calling “to give Russia a nose” and shoot down Russian planes in Syria.

In the American media, space stands out already mentioned Stephen Cohen, writing the editor of the oldest continuously published in the United States weekly magazines Nation. Cohen regularly warns of the danger of introducing into the minds of ordinary Americans the myth that “Russia attacked the United States” during the presidential elections in 2016, for which he has long received a personal stigma of Putin’s supporter and the enemy of NATO expansion. Not forgave him and the Russian order of Friendship, obtained through his scientific research on the problems of Russian history after 1917.

Mentioning Cohen, one can not call the linguist and philosopher of world renown Noam Chomsky, former senior adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan Patrick Buchanan, a former member of the Reagan administration, Professor Paul Craig Roberts. Despite different political views (from the anarcho-syndicalism of Chomsky to the paleoconservatism of Buchanan), in the field of foreign policy, all these Americans advocate diplomatic contacts with Moscow, not the expansion of NATO, the cessation of aggressive rhetoric against Russia and even isolationism in us foreign policy. However, due to the age of Chomsky, Buchanan and Roberts can no longer play any significant political role.

Of the modern representatives of the sane American scientist and media, the establishment should mention the authors, United around the Center of national interests (former Nixon Center, Washington) and the publication The National Interest. These are such people as Nicholas Gvozdev, Dmitry Symes, Anatol Levin, who advocate “new realism” in international relations and support the idea of interaction with Russia on key issues of the modern security architecture in the world.

Their views on U.S. foreign policy are largely shared by senior researchers at the Cato Institute (Washington) Doug Bandow and Ted Carpenter. They cannot be called friends of Russia, but they should not be. The true interests of U.S. national security do not have to have as its objective the demonization of Russia that Bando and carpenter expressed in his many articles and books.

They accuse NATO of unleashing a new cold war with Russia and call for skepticism about the realities of the Ukrainian regime, driving a stake in relations between Moscow and Washington.

The stories of Tulsi Gabbard, Dana Rohrbacher, or Stephen Cohen show how much the United States disagrees with the daily practice of asserting freedom of speech and the right to personal opinion. It is enough to publicly doubt once the need for the presence of American tanks on the Russian-Estonian border, and you are already considered “Putin’s apologist” and “Kremlin puppet”.

The American media and the political establishment does not tolerate dissent and does its best to eradicate it with all the power of the propaganda machine. All the more surprising is the appearance of such thinking politicians as Tulsi Gabbard, whose courage and perseverance should be paid tribute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 − one =