Putin is a first-class strategist who should be feared and respected by anyone challenging him on foreign policy.
By Nicolas Bonnal
Sometimes truth can emerge despite the media, even in America. As we know, 60% of the Americans and 90% of US military forces oppose the lunatic diplomacy of Barack Obama and his clique.
John Mearsheimer, a former US Air Force officer, who happens to be a political realist in global strategy, wrote a few years ago a book about the Israel Lobby in Washington, a lobby that is famous for its warmongering (even if so far Israel has kindly treated Putin and Russia). A prestigious and controversial scholar in his country, Mr Mearsheimer has again these days challenged western political standards by an article published in the famous review Foreign Affairs. He clearly understands Vladimir Putin's attitude and blames the US and the European grovelling colony for the situation in Ukraine and Eastern Europe:
But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia's orbit and integrate it into the West.
Then he explains how much Gnostic (to put it in our terms) is the western view of the world and diplomacy. He even uses the term 'Elites':
Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy.
Mr Mearsheimer recalls us that Russia was not hostile to NATO in the early nineties; but that she has soon to change her mood:
As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S. forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they thought would keep a reunified Germany pacified.
During NATO's 1995 bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs, for example, Russian President Boris Yeltsin said, "This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes right up to the Russian Federation's borders. ... The flame of war could burst out across the whole of Europe."
About the coup in Ukraine he reminds us its preparation in the following facts our readers knew since the beginning:
Victoria Nuland, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, estimated in December 2013 that the United States had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve "the future it deserves." As part of that effort, the U.S. government has bankrolled the National Endowment for Democracy.
Mr Mearsheimer recognizes the truth about the actual Ukrainian government (a government that currently serves only to prepare a world War and castigate its own people):
The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labelled neo-fascists.
Mr Mearsheimer does not blame the néocons (Kagan and his school) for the current mess but the liberals, an old term to designate idealists, socialists and leftists in Washington. The American left has been dangerous since one century and everywhere (Wilson, Roosevelt - who paved the road to war in Europe, Lyndon B. Johnson, Truman, and Clinton and so on):
Most liberals, on the other hand, favoured enlargement, including many key members of the Clinton administration. They believed that the end of the Cold War had fundamentally transformed international politics and that a new, post-national order had replaced the realist logic that used to govern Europe.
He tries then to explain us the deep and somewhat infantile meaning of the liberal Weltanschauung (worldview):
The liberal worldview is now accepted dogma among U.S. officials. In March, for example, President Barack Obama delivered a speech about Ukraine in which he talked repeatedly about "the ideals" that motivate Western policy and how those ideals "have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power."
He blames too the role of European émigrés (like maybe our nutty professor Brzezinski?):
Most eastern European émigrés in the United States and their relatives, for example, strongly supported expansion, because they wanted NATO to protect such countries as Hungary and Poland.
Between the lines he blames very much the Clinton administration and he clearly designates Madeleine Albright (who was born in Europe too) as responsible for the current disaster.
The United States was not only the "indispensable nation," as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it; it was also a benign hegemon and thus unlikely to be viewed as a threat in Moscow. The aim, in essence, was to make the entire continent look like Western Europe.
On the contrary Mr Mearsheimer recalls us the highly respected figure of George Kennan who opposed any NATO extension:
The U.S. diplomat George Kennan articulated this perspective in a 1998 interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved the first round of NATO expansion. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies," he said. "I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else."
About Vladimir Putin, and poor and disastrous Angela Merkel, this is what he writes:
In March, according to The New York Times, German Chancellor Angela Merkel implied that Putin was irrational, telling Obama that he was "in another world." Although Putin no doubt has autocratic tendencies, no evidence supports the charge that he is mentally unbalanced. On the contrary: he is a first-class strategist who should be feared and respected by anyone challenging him on foreign policy.
Finally Mr Mearsheimer counsels wisdom to Obama and his administration (how idealist he suddenly turns!):
The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria's position during the Cold War...To achieve this end, the United States and its allies should publicly rule out NATO's expansion into both Georgia and Ukraine.
He adds that Russia is a declining power, and it will only get weaker with time. What about a nihilist, depopulated and ruined Europe, des-industrialized, gesticulating and indebted America? According to us, this argument is not efficient anyway, only susceptible to justify the misbehaviour of arrogant assaulters.
Finally Mr Mearsheimer recalls the various helps of Russia to America and unwillingly (?) points out who may be to him the real enemy of America, the republic of China.
The United States will also someday need Russia's help containing a rising China. ... Imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico.
And he observes the results of Obama's insane policy here.
Current U.S. policy, however, is only driving Moscow and Beijing closer together.
Like many 'old American' thinkers Mr Mearsheimer fears the rise of China.
Well personally I would appreciate that China, Russia, India and the BRICS could isolate the West in the World. Agonizing America and European termites cannot indefinitely threaten or lead arrogantly the rest of humanity. Protecting the world from western banksters and a loony political Messianism should be the great purpose of the twenty-first century.
As November 4 approaches (on this day, Russia and Belarus are to sign union programs), disputes between supporters and opponents of the integration become increasingly heated