Two items to discuss today: russophobia and the Monroe Doctrine
It is a mystery to many level-headed people as to why there is so much russophobia amongst Western elites, why the West persists in a war which it has so little chance of winning and why the political West, led by America, would risk escalation as far as the use of nuclear weapons and humanity's obliteration, rather than get real, reconsider and negotiate.
In a previous article we concluded that there isn't enough debate in the mainstream Media on whether this war might in actual fact be unwinnable and on the counter arguments and alternative strategies to war. The alternative to an open and honest debate is the veil of propaganda that is thrown over us by the mainstream Media.
The irony is that politicians responsible for decisions on War and Peace, get most of their information from the MSM itself, ie by reading the newspapers they are believed to dictate to. In a recent article in The London Times, it was even alleged that British Prime Minister Starmer had "faced down" (sic) his own foreign office who recommend against firing missiles into Russia proper.
It seems that we are condemned to a doom loop where the MSM continues the propaganda in favour of war, the politicians read this and escalate further, and the mainstream Media comes in to support these political decisions... supporting Einstein's definition of madness.
We must not allow this deadly embrace between politicians and MSM to consign us to oblivion. Who is responsible for handicapping debate and preventing a peaceful resolution: is it the Mainstream Media or is it the politicians?
Conclusion
Take the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine exemplifies America's long-standing ambition for global dominance, while its involvement in these endless wars highlights the persistent drive for control.
However, the rigid stance of Western politicians, or their so-called "resilience", in the face of harsh battlefield realities, reveals a stubborn inability to adjust to facts.
Perhaps this is a manifestation of russophobia: that fear acquired in the 19th century when Britain was at the height of its power and felt threatened by Russia blocking their route to India, then in 1917 the Bolshevik revolution and a profound clash of ideologies, and more recently the Cold War and the West's push to get Russia out of Central Europe.
Rational leaders would surely recognise the growing opposition to their policies from the global South and the forces that are now building against them. Surely they see the need for a European security architecture ? Can European leaders not recognise the opportunities and benefits from commercial contracts with Russia? Of course they can, but politics first: must control, must dominate. Instead of clinging to failing policies and risking World War 3, politicians looking for success and recognition would surely seek compromise and negotiation.
Achieving a global consensus may be a more pragmatic approach to preserving influence in an increasingly multipolar world and may assure the politician of their page in history. What are the advisors telling them? Why are politicians ignoring the advisors?
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean, keep it lean