As a result, I am barraged now by concerned citizens in the West, always asking me when is Russia going to invade Ukraine but never asking why? Indeed, this glaring and awkward intellectual absence in the Ukraine discussion is telling. But there is something odd with this overwhelming onslaught of news: the articles have seemingly skipped the set-up, the lead-up from the Russian side that ostensibly should be driving this conflict forward. They make NATO needed, something it has struggled to convince the world of since the end of the Cold War, thus constantly trying to repaint Russia as the same old Soviet wolf.įor those who are skeptical, let me ask you: why is Russia supposedly going to invade Ukraine? A simple Google news search will lead the curious to literally dozens of articles about the likelihood of invasion. Fears over Ukraine, real or imagined, give renewed relevance to NATO. Not self-preservation in the sense of the West facing potential nuclear apocalypse but self-preservation of its greatest Cold War defense institution – NATO itself. Why would the West want the public to be so worried? Simply put: self-preservation. Rather, they are made when one side is not worried so much about real conflict as it is more interested in pushing public perception about just how dangerous the conflict could become. Such errors are not made ignorantly, not by organizations like these. This is a fundamental error in statecraft and something highly respected journalist organizations like the ones named above should connect to but so far have not. The problem is how irresponsibly the West is pushing the American/NATO perspective without really spending much time investigating what the Russian perspective happens to be. In the lead-up to conflict there are always two diametrically opposed perspectives being pushed against one another. Perhaps worst of all, Putin knows this (which explains why he always has his famous smirk when talking directly with or indirectly about President Biden and US positions).
Indeed, the continuing need to make NATO maintain its old bogeyman (the Soviet Union masked over with a cloak made of the Russian Federation flag) is doing nothing except showing how the non-adaptive defense organization is suffering from a very bad case of projectile dysfunction: happy to have to the world see Russia as the one true enemy, unhappy to ever be forced to actually fight that enemy. The reality is that the West is walking, with open diplomatic eyes, right into another Russian haymaker where its relative over-promising/under-delivering talk leaves Russia with greater influence and credibility without ever needing to fire a real bullet or launch a real missile. But the futility of the exercise doesn’t make it any less noble. Which is why this article might fall on deaf ears, given it is but a single piece in the West aiming to stand in the face of this propaganda hurricane.
To a non-Russian expert interested in global affairs, you would be hard-pressed not to think the world is quite literally on the verge of WWIII with tensions not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 1960s. The Hill tells us to expect shock and awe (from the West) if Russia invades.CBS, NBC, and Vox all cover on a daily basis the imminent attack on Ukraine because of Russian troop mobilization.
com is devoting first page space on its site to how the US military could mobilize if Russia attacks.
CNN reports that Biden promises withering sanctions if Russia invades.The New York Times discusses how Ukrainian commanders say a Russian invasion would overwhelm them.The shrill lamentations over Ukraine are reaching fever pitch here in the United States:
0 kommentar(er)
