You have not viewed any products recently.
Srdja Trifkovic interview with RT International on Putin’s foreign affairs speech
Broadcast live on October 24, 2014, 19:06 GMT
RT: Apart from the very strong rhetoric, Putin said that Russia does not really see a strong menace on the part of the US. Do you think Washington might stop seeing Moscow as a threat?
Srdja Trifkovic: No, I think that U.S. policy is guided by geopolitical intentions, by a strategic design to surround and squeeze Russia at every point, and if possible – in the fullness of time – to engineer regime change in Moscow. So the U.S. policy, and Western policy in general – which is really the result of what U.S. dictates to the Europeans – are not the result of a general perception of a Russian threat. Rather, they are guided by a long term geopolitical game which hasn’t changed since the Cold War.
RT: Why do you think it has not changed towards Russia?
ST: Because in essence the Washingtonian policy-makers do not see any difference in terms of the geopolitical enemy, whether it is the USSR or whether it is Russia. Effectively they look upon Russia as the “other,” not only in political but also in cultural and emotional terms. That is why you have such strong, stridently anti-Russian rhetoric at all levels of the Western establishment, whether it is politics or the media.
RT: Do you think if the Western leadership acted differently towards Russia, then we would see a different stance from Putin?
ST: Absolutely, because all along Russia has been responding to different signals from the West in an appropriate manner. When the rhetoric of the “reset” was all the rage, we saw a clearly reconciliatory response from the Russians.
Even now the Russian response to the sanctions hasn’t been strong enough. In fact it should be so strong as to prompt the unions, the employers and the shareholders of the Western companies to lobby with their own governments to change policies towards Russia – because it is beginning to hurt. But I think that Putin has correctly diagnosed the nature of the international system as increasingly anarchic, as the one in which the U.S. is trying to impose the rules. But they are not real rules, because they are applied on an entirely ad hoc basis from one situation to the other. Kosovo can be independent, but Crimea cannot re-join Russia… and so on.
I think it is a very important speech because it reflects the clarity on the Russian side. So far we have seen different circles surrounding President Putin advising different things. Some of the captains of the Russian industry have been advocating a more conciliatory line; then you have people like Rogozin or Shoigu who are advocating a more firm line, and foreign minister Lavrov acting somewhere in-between. Now I think we have a welcome development: we have strategic clarity of thought, which should result in a coherent policy, a long term policy of resistance to American monopolar unilateralism.
Balderdash. Some psychological problem in the Western mind with the "other" is hardly the source of Russia's problems. The West has no problem engaging with China which is far more "other" than is Russia. The Russians might take some cues from the Chinese who have dealt with their horrific Communist history a little more intelligently.
A fine commentary on the Russian leader by Dr. Trifkovic. I believe he is - sadly - quite correct about the ultimate US/Western goal of removing Putin; the isolation of Russia seems to be an enduring dream of the US foreign policy. Witness the clumsy encouragement of Georgia a few years ago to start a war and the fomenting of unrest in Ukraine.
I do not recall Dr T claiming psychological problems in Western minds as the source of Russia's problems - rather the Western mindset toward Russia as the source of US policy towards Russia. Those endless pundits and pols who claim there is no difference between Brezhnev and Putin only reveal little knowledge of either one.
Mr. Pilkington: Dr. Trifkovic is hardly suggesting that Western policies are the source of Russia's problems; rather, he implies the West regards Russia as a major source of Western problems. Russia is holding herself out of the liberal, multicultural world order and therefore must be neutralized both on the diplomatic stage and in domestic matters.
As for China, how else would you expect our elites to treat a country with 1.4 billion potential consumers? Remember what matters...!
Miss Radulovich, this theme that Washington sees Russia as a threat is played for the Russian domestic audience. Helps keep Putin popular. As for Russia being a bastion of anti-modernism, there is not much substance behind the rhetoric. The homosexuals in Russia have all the bath houses they could wish for, and Russia remains the abortion capital of the universe. As for Russia "holding herself out of the liberal, multicultural world order " and playing the standard-bearer of traditional Christian identity, the Catholics getting their properties confiscated and handed to the Russian Orthodox Church, Inc., don't think so highly of it. Those actions don't square with Putin's rhetoric in this speech about Russia's brilliant history of protecting minorities either. Regarding tradition Christian just war theory, I don't believe Russia's actions in the Ukraine meet that standard either.
Maybe a better question to ask is why Putin's pandering to the Russian people using anti-Enlightenment pro-Christian values results in his considerable popularity? If this base trickery works so well, what does it say about the attitudes of the Russian people?
As for the sodomy and baby-killing as least Putin and Russians know sewage when they see it. In the West we have elevated these things to civil and human rights.
Oh and by the way, here in Western Pennsylvania "Nenad" is a good old-fashioned American male name. Ask the descendants of the minors and steelworkers who earned the privilege of making it so.
To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.