why do they hate russia? – (en)

WHY DO THEY HATE RUSSIA_Dugutigui
The West is guilty of the same crimes it accuses Russia of committing.
Russia is not a superpower. Its population was shrinking, and so is its military, political, and economic might. Yes, Russians have their oil money to organise Olympics or buy fancy flats in London, but Russia itself is a far cry from the big nasty “bear” that was invading Afghanistan, when I emigrated from this evil colossus in search of a political freedom so lacking at home. Yet, this cherished western freedom is being threatened by a stifling hypocrisy.
For reasons that are both obvious and complex, Russia, the main heir of the collapsed Soviet Union, continues to be seen as an evil country. So any politician down on his luck – Senator McCain from Arizona is a case in point – is more than happy to invoke the ghosts of the Cold War and use Russia as a stepping stone for his failing attempts to stay relevant. What could be simpler? Just get on the Fox news, or if you are more sophisticated, on the pages of NewRepublic, Weekly Standard, or NYT Review of Books, and pontificate about the need to get tough on Russia. You gain immediate access to the deep recesses of the American psyche raised in constant fear of the Evil Empire. The public is yours to take.
The same strategy works well in Great Britain as well, where anti-Russian phobia runs even deeper, into 19th century with its almost pathological and racist fear of Russia’s rising power. That fear, by the way, has already resulted in the Crimea War of 19th century. (David Fromkin’s 1989 prize winning study, A Peace to End all Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East offers a superb analysis of the power and geopolitical legacy of this fear).
WHY DO THEY HATE RUSSIA_0_Dugutigui
But this combination of opportunism with self-induced blindness, clearly obscures the reality of the situation. Most importantly, Russians feel humiliated as a result of the collapse of their empire. And everyone knows you don’t taunt or mock your defeated enemy. Western leaders, however, are forever ready to do so and while engaging in this morally dubious enterprise, they keep congratulating themselves for their moral uprightness.
“Pussy Riot”, “gay propaganda law”, Olympics and everything else in between are the subject of endless moralizing, while Western scandals and abuses are dismissed as the sign of the healthy democratic process.
The situation in Ukraine reminds of Moliere’s famous play Tartuffe in which the main character is a selfish and manipulative person, who pursues his materialist interests under the guise of piety. Russia falls into its role of Moliere’s gullible Orgon, while the west plays a convincing Tartuffe.
Dealing with such an exotic country as Russia, separated from the West by its unique geography, history, religion, and political system, the West has fully internalised utterly undemocratic and hypocritical attitude captured by the maxim: “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” (What is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to an ox). Furthermore, as late comers to the Western civilisation, Russians themselves seem to accept this unhealthy attitude without challenging it.
This situation has persisted after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Despite its self-congratulations on the triumphant power of democratic values and its demands that Russia treats its citizens and neighbours with equanimity, the West continues to lecture it on its inadequacies. Consequently, Western militaristic adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, or Kosovo are disguised as some sort of noble and moral endeavours.
Russia’s assertions of its country national interests are presented, however, as an act of blatant aggression. One would expect that the endless amount of economic, political, social, and military abuses that we witness around us would make modern day Tartuffes more modest in their pious claims, but it doesn’t.
Furthermore, if the West preaches equality but treats other countries as second best, why can’t Russia do that too? Why can’t it treat Ukraine in the same way it has been treated by the West? And if Russia is the subject of double standards, was the West lying to the Russians all along, convincing them that there’s nothing to fear and can peacefully disarm and withdraw, while at the same time secretly expanding NATO towards its borders? To push the analogy with Moliere’s play even further, Tartuffe is not just a sanctimonious hypocrite; he eventually tries to repossess the house of Orgon, whose gullibility he uses precisely for that purpose.
I suspect that the collapse of Ukraine has brought this fact to the surface, and Russians – in the manner of Orgon – suddenly realised that they’ve been taken advantage of, that Tartuffe wants to re-possess their house, that all these assurances that Russia is an equal member of G8 were empty talk. It can see nuclear arms at its border, which the West will surely place there after it buys Ukraine out of its economic crisis. Western response? Blame Russian aggression again. It is a classic case of blaming the victim.  Now the West will surely surround Russia with nuclear arms.
I hope that the West will come back to its senses, sit at the table and negotiate with Russia a solution to the Ukrainian crisis and create a military neutral space there. Because if it doesn’t, the next Russian political leader might be less accommodating than Putin, whose foreign policy was to give the West everything it wanted while getting very little in return.
Like the US, the UK, and France, Russia has its legitimate national interests that have to be defended. Why should Russia tolerate NATO at its borders and the potential loss of the Sevastopol navy base to the modern-day Tartuffes?
.
Why do they hate Russia? – By Vladimir Golstein (Vladimir Golstein teaches Russian literature and film at Brown University. He is the author of Lermontov’s Narratives of Heroism (1999) and numerous articles on all major Russian authors. He was born in Moscow, went to the US in 1979, and studied at Columbia and Yale Universities)
About these ads

About Dugutigui

In the “Diula” language in Mali, the term « dugutigui » (chief of the village), literally translated, means: «owner of the village»; «dugu» means village and «tigui», owner. Probably the term is the result of the contraction of «dugu kuntigui» (literally: chief of the village).
This entry was posted in Education, English, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to why do they hate russia? – (en)

  1. Mike says:

    Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
    Good points. Why does territorial aggression only bother the US in this case. US allies grab territory elsewhere, in violation of international law, with little complaint from the American government.

    • Dugutigui says:

      I’ve been a little busy lately and I’m sorry for the delay in answering.
      Every empire, however, tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate :)
      Thanks for your comment.

  2. A rational explanation might require recourse to heretical academics and journalists. Are you familiar with this one?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

  3. genomega1 says:

    Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
    why do they hate russia? – (en)

  4. Mus says:

    Very interesting… the easiest way to keep your people together and disciplined is looking for a common enemy. That’s what the West (and Putin) do. It’s the oldest trick in the book of politics.

  5. ~meredith says:

    I like the way you used Tartuffe to discuss this. Very insightful, and a good read. Thank you.

    • Vladimir Golstein says:

      Thank you, Meredith. Great literature is a great teacher. Vladimir

    • Dugutigui says:

      I’ve been a little busy lately and I’m sorry for the delay in answering.
      Well, the author of the post Mr. Vladimir Golstein thanked you directly :) :)
      From my side, thanks for your comment.

  6. Really interesting article, thanks for sharing. One thing that interests me is how all this rhetoric plays out with the populations of the (ostensibly) democratic countries involved. Are we stupid to swallow so much b#lls##t? Systematically persuaded? Frightened? Or lulled, just as the leaders are themselves, by offers of power and prosperity? To what extent are these states of mind deliberately induced in us by those in power and to what extent are they evolved products of a ‘neutral’ system?

    • Dugutigui says:

      I’ve been a little busy lately and I’m sorry for the delay in answering.
      It would not be impossible to prove, with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned, that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.
      Thanks for your comment.

  7. Mélanie says:

    @”Like the US, the UK, and France, Russia has its legitimate national interests that have to be defended. Why should Russia tolerate NATO at its borders and the potential loss of the Sevastopol navy base to the modern-day Tartuffes?” – había entendido durante algún tiempo por qué han optado por permanecer “anónimo”, pero una vez en el Internet, nadie es anónimo… ;)
    saludos tolosanos y mis mejores deseos desde el país del Tartufo, olé! :) con amistad internacional, Mélanie

    • Dugutigui says:

      I’ve been a little busy lately and I’m sorry for the delay in answering.
      There are too many of us. There are billions of us and that’s too many. Nobody knows anyone :) :)
      Thanks for your comment.

  8. chr1 says:

    I take your points, and will agree that the past American century of foreign involvement has been full of the sometimes unsavory pursuit of naked self interest, but I see the main principle at issue here is the desire for people in Ukraine who so want to live with more self-determination, economic opportunity, and political stability apart from Moscow to be able to do so.

    That is in the interest of me and you being free to speak about it here.

    Ukraine’s economy is a mess, the country divided on deep ethnic, historical and linguistic (and even religious) faultlines, many older generations wanting to go back to Moscow but if you don’t see much difference between how Putin is acting and the U.S. government than I think you’re missing way too much.

    • Dugutigui says:

      Step by step,

      USA foreign “involvement”
      USA foreign “involvement” from WWII can’t be defined as “unsavoury.” The USA is directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.
      The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.
      But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.
      The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.
      To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.
      And the pain and anger is spread even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person who dies in wars. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen.
      It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII “chose not to know.” We cannot allow history to say this about our country. So “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” The answer is: possibly 10,000.
      The purpose of all this killing is to prevent alternative, independent, self-defining nations from emerging. So the USA uses its state power to gather private wealth for its investor class. And it uses its public wealth to shore up its state power and prevent other nations from self-developing.
      On other hand, as of 31 December 2010, US Armed Forces were stationed at more than 840 installations in around 150 nations.

      Desire for people in Ukraine.
      I’m agreed that the only important issue here should be improving conditions for the people of Ukraine. But that hasn’t been and it is never going to be the aim of the USA or the EU. But if you think it is, you must agree that the people of Crimea has the same right to self-determination.
      In fact, the majority-Russian Crimean population voted overwhelmingly to join Russia principally due to fear of the anti-Semitic, anti-Russian forces the West unleashed in Ukraine when it backed the February 22 fascist-led putsch in Kiev. This regime now rules Kiev with appeals to anti-Russian chauvinism and by relying on violence to intimidate its opponents.
      On other hand, Russia, up to date, is not invading the rest of Ukraine, so they may have a chance to improve their economic opportunities and political stability, under the tutelage of the IMF – According to a report [ http://www.kommersant.ua/doc/2424454 ] in Kommersant-Ukraine, the finance ministry of Washington’s stooges in Kiev who are pretending to be a government has prepared an economic austerity plan that will cut Ukrainian pensions from $160 to $80 so that Western bankers who lent money to Ukraine can be repaid at the expense of Ukraine’s poor. It is Greece all over again.

      The truth is that Berlin sees no strategic interest in Ukraine, merely a humanitarian one. Seen from the German capital, Ukraine, an economic basket case plagued by corruption and ethnic tensions, is not a prize, at least not one worth fighting Russia for. Neither Ms. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union nor her center-left coalition partners see it as ever fulfilling the conditions for EU membership.
      Perhaps Germany is not alone in Europe in holding such views, just more forthright in articulating them. As Stefan Meister, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, puts it: “There is no readiness in Europe to take sole responsibility for Ukraine… It is hugely important to Russia, not that important to Europe.”

      Now the USA. Behind the U.S.-backed coup that ousted the democratically elected president of Ukraine are the economic interests of giant corporations – from Cargill to Chevron – which see the country as a potential “gold mine” of profits from agricultural and energy exploitation.
      On Jan. 12, a reported 50,000 “pro-Western” Ukrainians descended upon Kiev’s Independence Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning of the end of Yanukovych’s four year-long government.
      That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for U.S. agribusiness titan Cargill.
      Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine’s UkrLandFarming. According to Financial Times, UkrLandFarming is the world’s eighth-largest land cultivator and second biggest egg producer. And those aren’t the only eggs in Cargill’s increasingly-ample basket.
      On Dec. 13, Cargill announced the purchase of a stake in a Black Sea port. Cargill’s port at Novorossiysk — to the east of Russia’s strategically significant and historically important Crimean naval base — gives them a major entry-point to Russian markets and adds them to the list of Big Ag companies investing in ports around the Black Sea, both in Russia and Ukraine.
      Cargill has been in Ukraine for over two decades, investing in grain elevators and acquiring a major Ukrainian animal feed company in 2011. And, based on its investment in UkrLandFarming, Cargill was decidedly confident amidst the post-EU deal chaos. It’s a stark juxtaposition to the alarm bells ringing out from the U.S. media, bellicose politicians on Capitol Hill and perplexed policymakers in the White House.
      It’s even starker when compared to the anxiety expressed by Morgan Williams, President and CEO of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council — which, according to its website, has been “Promoting U.S.-Ukraine business relations since 1995.” Williams was interviewed by the International Business Times on March 13 and, despite Cargill’s demonstrated willingness to spend, he said, “The instability has forced businesses to just go about their daily business and not make future plans for investment, expansion and hiring more employees.”
      In fact, Williams, who does double-duty as Director of Government Affairs at the private equity firm SigmaBleyzer, claimed, “Business plans have been at a standstill.”
      Apparently, he wasn’t aware of Cargill’s investment, which is odd given the fact that he could’ve simply called Van A. Yeutter, Vice President for Corporate Affairs at Cargill, and asked him about his company’s quite active business plan. There is little doubt Williams has the phone number because Mr. Yuetter serves on the Executive Committee of the selfsame U.S.-Ukraine Business Council. It’s quite a cozy investment club, too.
      According to his SigmaBleyzer profile, Williams “started his work regarding Ukraine in 1992” and has since advised American agribusinesses “investing in the former Soviet Union.” As an experienced fixer for Big Ag, he must be fairly friendly with the folks on the Executive Committee.
      And what a committee it is — it’s a veritable who’s who of Big Ag. Among the luminaries working tirelessly and no doubt selflessly for a better, freer Ukraine are:
      –Melissa Agustin, Director, International Government Affairs & Trade for Monsanto
      –Brigitte Dias Ferreira, Counsel, International Affairs for John Deere
      –Steven Nadherny, Director, Institutional Relations for agriculture equipment-maker CNH Industrial
      –Jeff Rowe, Regional Director for DuPont Pioneer
      –John F. Steele, Director, International Affairs for Eli Lilly & Company
      And, of course, Cargill’s Van A. Yeutter. But Cargill isn’t alone in their warm feelings toward Ukraine. As Reuters reported in May 2013, Monsanto — the largest seed company in the world — plans to build a $140 million “non-GM (genetically modified) corn seed plant in Ukraine.”
      And right after the decision on the EU trade deal, Jesus Madrazo, Monsanto’s Vice President for Corporate Engagement, reaffirmed his company’s “commitment to Ukraine” and “the importance of creating a favorable environment that encourages innovation and fosters the continued development of agriculture.”
      Monsanto’s strategy includes a little “hearts and minds” public relations, too. On the heels of Mr. Madrazo’s reaffirmation, Monsanto announced “a social development program titled “Grain Basket of the Future” to help rural villagers in the country improve their quality of life.” The initiative will dole out grants of up to $25,000 to develop programs providing “educational opportunities, community empowerment, or small business development.”
      The well-crafted moniker “Grain Basket of the Future” is telling because, once upon a time, Ukraine was known as “the breadbasket” of the Soviet Union. The CIA ranks Soviet-era Ukraine second only to Mother Russia as the “most economically important component of the former Soviet Union.”
      In many ways, the farmland of Ukraine was the backbone of the USSR. Its “fertile black soil” generated over a quarter of the USSR’s agriculture. It exported “substantial quantities” of food to other republics and its farms generated four times output of “the next-ranking republic.”
      Although Ukraine’s agricultural output plummeted in the first decade after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the farming sector has been growing spectacularly in recent years. While Europe struggled to shake-off the Great Recession, Ukraine’s agriculture sector grew 13.7% in 2013.
      Ukraine’s agriculture economy is hot. Russia’s is not. Hampered by the effects of climate change and 25 million hectares of uncultivated agricultural land, Russia lags behind its former breadbasket.
      According to the Centre for Eastern Studies, Ukraine’s agricultural exports rose from $4.3 billion in 2005 to $17.9 billion in 2012 and, harkening the heyday of the USSR, farming currently accounts for 25 percent of its total exports. Ukraine is also the world’s third-largest exporter of wheat and of corn. And corn is not just food. It is also ethanol.
      But people gotta eat — particularly in Europe. As Frank Holmes of U.S. Global Investors assessed in 2011, Ukraine is poised to become Europe’s butcher. Meat is difficult to ship, but Ukraine is perfectly located to satiate Europe’s hunger.
      Just two days after Cargill bought into UkrLandFarming, Global Meat News (yes, “Global Meat News” is a thing) reported a huge forecasted spike in “all kinds” of Ukrainian meat exports, with an increase of 8.1% overall and staggering 71.4% spike in pork exports. No wonder Eli Lilly is represented on the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council’s Executive Committee. Its Elanco Animal Health unit is a major manufacturer of feed supplements.
      And it is also notable that Monsanto’s planned seed plant is non-GMO, perhaps anticipating an emerging GMO-unfriendly European market and Europe’s growing appetite for organic foods. When it comes to Big Ag’s profitable future in Europe, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
      For Russia and its hampered farming economy, it’s another in a long string of losses to U.S. encroachment — from NATO expansion into Eastern Europe to U.S. military presence to its south and onto a major shale gas development deal recently signed by Chevron in Ukraine.
      So, why was Big Ag so bullish on Ukraine, even in the face of so much uncertainty and the predictable reaction by Russia?
      The answer is that the seeds of Ukraine’s turn from Russia have been sown for the last two decades by the persistent Cold War alliance between corporations and foreign policy. It’s a version of the “Deep State” that is usually associated with the oil and defense industries, but also exists in America’s other heavily subsidized industry — agriculture.
      Morgan Williams is at the nexus of Big Ag’s alliance with U.S. foreign policy. To wit, SigmaBleyzer touts Mr. Williams’ work with “various agencies of the U.S. government, members of Congress, congressional committees, the Embassy of Ukraine to the U.S., international financial institutions, think tanks and other organizations on U.S.-Ukraine business, trade, investment and economic development issues.”
      As President of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, Williams has access to Council cohort — David Kramer, President of Freedom House. Officially a non-governmental organization, it has been linked with overt and covert “democracy” efforts in places where the door isn’t open to American interests — a.k.a. U.S. corporations.
      Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy and National Democratic Institute helped fund and support the Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” in 2004. Freedom House is funded directly by the U.S. Government, the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Department of State.
      David Kramer is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and, according to his Freedom House bio page, formerly a “Senior Fellow at the Project for the New American Century.”
      Nuland’s Role
      That puts Kramer and, by one degree of separation, Big Ag fixer Morgan Williams in the company of PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan who, as coincidence would have it, is married to Victoria “F*ck the EU” Nuland, the current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.
      Interestingly enough, Ms. Nuland spoke to the U.S.-Ukrainian Foundation last Dec. 13, extolling the virtues of the Euromaidan movement as the embodiment of “the principles and values that are the cornerstones for all free democracies.”
      Nuland also told the group that the United States had invested more than $5 billion in support of Ukraine’s “European aspirations,” meaning pulling Ukraine away from Russia. She made her remarks on a dais featuring a backdrop emblazoned with a Chevron logo.
      Also, her colleague and phone call buddy U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt helped Chevron cook up their 50-year shale gas deal right in Russia’s kitchen.
      Although Chevron sponsored that event, it is not listed as a supporter of the Foundation. But the Foundation does list the Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil and Raytheon as major sponsors. And, to close the circle of influence, the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council is also listed as a supporter.
      Which brings the story back to Big Ag’s fixer — Morgan Williams.
      Although he was glum about the current state of investment in Ukraine, he’s gotta wear shades when he looks into the future. He told the International Business Times, “The potential here for agriculture/agribusiness is amazing … production here could double. The world needs the food Ukraine could produce in the future. Ukraine’s agriculture could be a real gold mine.”
      Of course, his priority is to ensure that the bread of well-connected businesses gets lavishly buttered in Russia’s former breadbasket. And there is no better connected group of Ukraine-interested corporations than American agribusiness.
      Given the extent of U.S. official involvement in Ukrainian politics — including the interesting fact that Ambassador Pyatt pledged U.S. assistance to the new government in investigating and rooting-out corruption — Cargill’s seemingly risky investment strategy probably wasn’t that risky, after all.

      Putin and the U.S. government acting.
      I don’t see Russia or the Chinese trying to surround the USA planting missiles in countries like Mexico or Canada. We really did team up with the EU to try to counter Putin’s attempt to stave off our attack on his border region by launching a mini Syria style attack to overthrow the Ukraine government.
      I don’t see any nation as USA with Armed Forces stationed at more than 840 installations in around 150 nations. This staggering statistic shows that the USA has a military presence in over 77% of the world’s nations. One would have to ask why on earth do the Americans need to plant their troops and weapons in three-quarters of the world, if not for the purpose of having an empire and controlling the planet for the exclusive benefit of the corrupt financial system of the United States ran by the three mafia branches of Washington D.C., Wall Street, and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The American Mafia Trifecta manipulates all financial markets worldwide including the Libor interest rates, the Commodity Exchange (Comex) that sets the price for precious metals, the bullion banks, storage facilities for aluminum, and of course the New York Stock Exchange with high frequency algorithmic trading front running market buy/sell data.
      So answering your question, I think the USA desire to control the Earth must be countered because, believe or not, much of the rest of the world absolutely hates USA. They resent its dominance and they are tired of them imposing their will on the rest of the globe. For generations, Americans have been taught to view themselves as “the good guys”, but the sad fact of the matter is that most of the rest of the world does not view them as “the good guys” anymore. In fact, there are quite a few nations out there that would actively like to do them harm.

      Now, I respect your opinion, but I consider it naïve and extremely ill informed.
      Thanks for your comment.

  9. chr1 says:

    I don’t know where you’ve been getting your facts, but if you don’t see that Russia, with its feudal and fairly brutal past, its adventure in becoming guided by an ideology and philosophical structure that led to the Soviet Union becoming a totalitarian, Communist expansionary State which eventually rotted from the inside out (not before killing tens of millions of its own citizens) is not a vital part of what’s going on now in Ukraine, then I think you may need to read other things. Moscow didn’t and doesn’t mess around when it comes to taking what it wants.

    If you think the 97% referendum was legitimate, and that Putin’s aims respect the self-determination of all people living in Crimea and Ukraine, I can’t say I agree.

    If you don’t see the naked pursuit of self-interest and natural resources by the Chinese in Africa, and the Chinese regime in maintaining a post-Communist, semi-authoritarian government which cracks down on ethnic and religious minority groups as well as seeing Taiwan, Nepal, and other territories as rightfully belonging to China, I don’t know what you’re thinking, honestly. We’ll see how much justice you’ll get if you have something Putin needs (weak as Russia is), or if you suddenly find yourself in the middle of a serious conflict between the Chinese and Japanese militaries.

    I don’t fault you in any way for seeing the self-interest and injustice of some American actions and policy. We pursue our self-interest as well as our ideals. Many AMericans have naive and misinformed conceptions about other peoples and nations of world, and all Americans have some. It’s in your rational interest to harbor serious doubts about American military and economic power, but in your narrow focus upon that injustice (and a vague appeal to the rest of the world hating the US), I suspect you are not looking at much of the rest of the world as it is.

    • Dugutigui says:

      For sure not from Fox News or the New York Times or Washington Post. In any case, facts are easy to find, if you arte willing to do it.

      Your idea of today’s Russia is so cliché that is not worth comment. Myself I’ve been in Russia several times –last was two months ago, so I believe my opinion has more real basis than yours on the issue.

      Referendum in Crimea is as legitimate as Kosovo’s. But we should note here your double standards, saying Crimea’s referendum is illegitimate, while supporting the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev.

      I see the naked pursuit of self-interest and natural resources by the Chinese (I’ve been living also in China almost two years and 16 in Africa) and even by Russians. The only difference with you is I also see the hypocrite pursuit of self-interest and natural resources by the USA in the name of goodness democracy.

      Don’t get me wrong. My entire line of thinking is based on conviction that the world will be much better off with two or three super powers, than with just one. Not that any of the would-be empires are good for humanity. Nevertheless note that in the 27 countries I have worked, or in the 50/60 I have visited I have never felt threatened my freedom, including here China, Russia, and the USA.

      Regarding the vague appeal that the rest of the world hates the US, you just need to travel a little bit. In fact is not the world hates the USA or its citizens, but its policies.

      • chr1 says:

        Hey, you make some great points and I can’t disagree about at least 2-3 superpowers or other arrangements, nor the general mistrust of US policies.

        You’ve clearly traveled more than I have.

        I guess I feel enough loyalty and responsibility to some of the troops serving, some policy-makers, and a duty I have to other US citizens.

        It doesn’t make US policies automatically correct, nor agreeable, nor does it grant a morally superior position regarding Ukraine.

        But those duties and responsibilities are real, and operating with some quite limited restraints.

        “Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right.”

      • Dugutigui says:

        I’ve been a little busy lately and I’m sorry for the delay in answering.
        I don’t believe there is a single person I loved that I didn’t eventually betray.
        Thanks for your comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s