THE MEDIA AND PROPAGANDA WAR AGAINST RUSSIA - CARELESS POLITICKING COULD LEAD TO AVOIDABLE DISASTER. P.2

One can easily get the impression that, according to the Amer-European world view, Russia and the Russians are being perceived with hardly less disdain than the Africans, the Arabs, the Asians and the Chinese. All of them are viewed with measures of distrust, disdain and fear. Though to different degrees, but with the Russians and the Chinese, because of their actual and potential power, being seen as 'threats' which should be neutralised. The rulers of the west see themselves as the elites; the 'civilized ones', compared with the Russians and the rest.

In its approach to address this 'threat', western foreign policy considers it necessary for Russia to, first, be made or 'shaped' into the perceived 'enemy of 'democracy' and the west.' Secondly, its objective is that of Russia, which President Putin and his government is seen as embodying, as the de facto or actual enemy. As it is forced to react to the perception of 'the enemy', which the west's propaganda and policies has created.

We can draw the analogy of the police - in whatever country - in a malicious exercise of their power, stopping and questioning a man, with the intention of getting him to commit an 'offence', which he might not have committed, had he not been maliciously stopped and questioned.

Let the sky be lit up with the setting or rising Sun, and not the weapons of war.

What is taking place in the international relations between the west and Russia is an exercise in machiavellianism, and it has the potential to effect a massive and decades long setback in international relationships between the protagonists. It is extremely dangerous stuff; not least because it is difficult to identify any western leader or diplomat who one can have any faith in them being able to contain what is happening and avoiding it being taken to the brink. We have Theresa May, Francois Hollande, Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel, but they all belong to Club West, whose motto is 'all for one and one for all, right or wrong.'

We seem to have a situation in which irresponsible and, yes, reckless, politicians and diplomats are making dangerous statements, today, as it were, but which could become converted into hostility tomorrow. 

If talking peace is a precondition for making peace, then, what is to prevent talking hostility  and war, from becoming a precursor to hostility and war?

Where there is peace and tranquillity, protect and preserve it; where there is conflict or risk of conflict, seek to avoid or resolve it.

The fact that Russia and China are in an alliance is probably having some restraining influence on the west, as its economy is now somewhat interlinked with that of China. War between the West and Russia, would therefore have that additional adverse impact on the western economy; most likely taking us back 2008.  This recognition might have figured in the the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, initially deciding to put a hold on the Chinese building the country's first nuclear power station for many years.

Contemplating war with Russia, therefore, would require the west to contemplate war or the possibility of it with China.

I have respect for Secretary of State John Kerry, and his success in bringing about a resolution of the Iran nuclear issue has to be acknowledged. However, when it comes to the proxy war in Syria, it is clear the John Kerry has become greatly frustrated; apparently thinking that the Russians and Syrian government 'are not being reasonable.' Well, that might be an understandable position for a diplomat and politician whose country is not being torn apart by hundreds of armed factions, and whose primary objective is to secure a settlement which is in the best interest of the United States government and its regional allies. 

To be continued

When the going is tough, the prudent becomes more circumspect and calm, thereby preventing themselves to fall victims to be swept along with the aimless current.