By Paul Craig Roberts
Putin is a liberal in the old fashioned sense that no longer exists in the West. He believes in sustaining a network of laws and agreements that resolve disputes diplomatically instead of with violence. He believes that government should serve the people and not the economic interests of the elite. He believes that religion is an important element of social unity and sustains moral behavior on which society depends. He is constrained in implementing his beliefs by Washington and Russian leadership elements that are pro-Western. This leaves Putin frustrated and angry.
Putin’s views contrast sharply with what passes for liberalism in the West today. Western liberals teach race and gender hatred of white people and men. Morality for Western liberals is championing “transgender rights,” such as the ability of men to declare themselves women and compete in female sports. Western liberals are active in reducing the informational content of language by erasing the use of gender pronouns. Liberals regard religion as the cause of wars and superstition. The sharp difference in views gives liberals many reasons to hate Putin. But these are not the main reasons Putin is hated.
The West consists of different strata. Ordinary people incapable of thinking for themselves hate Putin because they watch CNN and Fox News, listen to NPR, and read the NY Times and have been brainwashed with the war propaganda narrative. The patriotic conservatives among them hate Putin because their government does and waving the flag is how they show their patriotism. When they hear the American President calling the President of Russia a “war criminal,” a “murderous dictator” and “a pure thug,” they do the same.
Ordinary people have absorbed a narrative. The hatred originates in those who constructed the narrative. What the Western intellectual class hates about Putin is that he believes in national sovereignty. In the West national sovereignty is associated with Nazi Germany. The West’s politicians, with the exclusion of Trump and Marine LePen, are committed to open borders. European countries have allowed, indeed encouraged, their borders to be overrun by immigrant invaders who do not assimilate. The same for the US and Canada. Indeed, American liberals consider the defense of US borders against immigrant invaders to be civil rights violations and a crime against humanity. Putin’s defense of Russian sovereignty is the reason Hillary Clinton branded him “the new Hitler.”
The Western governing and intellectual class is committed to globalism, including the extreme form represented by the World Economic Forum in which all but the rulers are slaves subject to being cut off from their allocated income by disapproval. Globalism is the opposite of national sovereignty. Putin is hated because sovereignty and globalism are inconsistent
The West understands this Thus, the hatred dumped on Marine LePen and Trump. But it is unclear that Putin understands this. He seems to think of globalism as a community of nations working together. This view is unique to Putin and is most certainly not what globalism is. Globalism is the sacrifice of sovereignty to the government–Washington–that runs the global system.
Putin is in the way of Washington’s hegemony and globalism. Russia allied with China and most of Asia means Washington’s hegemonic and globalist agenda is impossible. Washington intends to remove Russia as a constraint on Washington’s agenda.
Washington’s refusal to support the Minsk Agreement, Washington’s refusal to honor its pledge not to move NATO to Russia’s border, Washington’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s security concern, Washington’s encouragement with psyops, sanctions, weapons and training of Ukraine’s army for war with Russia are mainstays of Washington’s attack on Russia, as was the recently attempted color revolution in Kazakhstan and the current NATO military exercises in Georgia.
Russia’s leadership has been extremely slow to comprehend, or to face up to, the fact that the West intends to destabilize Russia. Russia’s leadership has even enabled Russia’s destabilization by permitting Washington-funded media and organizations inside Russia to agitate against the government. Apparently, a gullible leadership believed it had to accept treason as evidence of its toleration of all views and commitment to democracy.
The only thing that Russia has done right is to create a functioning military, something that the West does not have. Ukraine was an opportunity for Russia to intimidate the West and bring the provocations to a halt. But Russia, ever with an eye on Western acceptance, missed the opportunity. Russia will succeed in rescuing the Donbas Russians, but she can expect more provocations. The hatred of Russians that the West’s presstitutes have created in Western populations guarantees that there will be no constraint on the Western governments by the people.
US Biowar Labs In Ukraine
The string of US-funded biowar labs in Ukraine discovered by the Russian military was admitted by the US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland in testimony before Congress.
The discovery of the biowar labs reminded me of articles I had written on the subject five years ago: