A few snippets from Caitlin today:
People tell me, “If you lived in Russia or China you’d be thrown in prison for talking the way you do.”
If I lived in Russia or China I’d still be focusing all my energy on criticizing the US empire. It would be the world’s most powerful and destructive regime no matter where I lived.
Oddly, I hear no one wanting to contest this on the basis of factual and quantifiable evidence. Does everyone else agree with Caitlin too? Or do they fear fact based inquiry while believing – so deep down they barely know it – she must be wrong or the media would have told us? 1
The correct debate is not whether Putin was right or wrong to invade Ukraine in response to western provocations on its border. It’s whether Putin did anything the US wouldn’t have done in response to the same kind of provocations on its own borders.
I think this is what she has in mind.
Arguing about whether Russia’s invasion was “bad” is an infantile conversation for mental midgets. Mature adults are interested in talking about the real world as it actually exists and how governments behave in it, not how they’d behave in some imaginary hypothetical fantasy land where the US isn’t constantly making all those moral positions meaningless with its own actions and aggressions.
Mental midgets! I love it when Caity goes non-PC. Marx went in for sizeist put-downs too, and for the same reason: sheer exasperation at the inanity of otherwise sensible people too idle or fearful or cynical to use their brains on matters vital to ruling interests.
As for what mature adults are into, in this context at least Chicago academic John Mearsheimer has a name for it: realism.
But what of those who agree that Washington did indeed provoke the invasion, yet in the same breath say Russia should not have ‘taken the bait’? I’m still waiting for their detailed account of what her leaders should have done instead … 2 3
* * *
- Corporate media employ many subjectively sincere (if self-servingly credulous) writers and even editors. What’s more, on important matters which may embarrass power, some at least are capable of being truthful with us. Only on matters which go to the heart of power, and are by that fact non negotiable, does it become apparent – and then only to the few who, not fully caught up in a propaganda blitz, are still paying attention – that far from holding power to account they are its most dutiful servants. For the mechanisms of this, see Britain decides! and Monolithic control at the Guardian?
- Paul Craig Roberts, an erstwhile Reagan appointee at the US Treasury, is one of those gamekeepers turned poacher whose proliferation I – mangling my metaphors horribly – call the canary in the coalmine. He has been saying for years that Russia has been turning the other cheek way too long. Indeed, he blames “Putin’s appeasement” for expediting rather than averting WW3. In March 2018, Mr Roberts opened a piece – Can Nuclear War Be Avoided? – with this:
Two factors are driving the world to nuclear war. One is the constant stream of insults, false accusations and broken agreements that the West has been dumping on Russia year after year. The other is Russia’s response, or, perhaps more correctly, the lack thereof
He continued in the same vein – that in being too placatory, Chamberlain style, Moscow had been sending all the wrong signals; making it almost as culpable as Washington in endangering us all. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t – but was Paul Craig Roberts too quick to find fault? What we seem to be learning now, as the West hurls its combined but inadequate might at fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian, is that Moscow was all the while quietly heeding the words of 4th century Latin blogger Vegetius: si vis pacem, para bellum
- Still on the subject of gamekeepers turned poacher, here’s former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who at no small personal cost refused to rubber stamp the lies which twenty years ago laid Iraq to waste, looking angrier than I’ve ever seen as he blasts “stupidity on a massive scale …”