Wednesday 1 March 2017

Who Says It Can’t Happen Here?

We have endured 40 years of creeping authoritarianism and it now appears that it may run right over democracy. We must resist and act in solidarity.



Donald Trump’s candidacy and now, presidency, have resurrected a public discourse not heard in this country since the Great Depression — an anxious discourse about the possible triumph in America of a fascist-tinged authoritarian regime over liberal democracy. It’s a fear Sinclair Lewis turned into a 1935 bestselling novel, It Can’t Happen Here — although, as Lewis told it, it sure as hell could happen here.
It did not happen, however. Not then, at least. Electing Franklin Roosevelt as president and taking up the labors of the New Deal, our parents and grandparents not only rejected the sirens of authoritarianism, they actually extended and deepened American freedom, equality and democracy. They subjected big business to public account and regulation; expanded the nation’s public infrastructure and improved the environment; empowered the federal government to address the needs of working people and the poor; mobilized farmers’ organizations, labor unions, consumer campaigns and civil rights groups and fought for their rights, broadening the “We” in “We the People.”
Undeniably, they left a great deal to be done. But they gave themselves the wherewithal to defeat fascism overseas and learned how to democratically rebuild the nation.
Now we find ourselves anxiously asking, Can it happen here? Trump has given us plenty of reason to worry. He has referred to Mexican immigrants as murderers and rapists; ordered mass deportations of the undocumented by resorting to what he himself describes as “a military operation;” spoken of creating a “Muslim registry” and sought to ban Muslims from entering the country. What’s more, he repeatedly has expressed admiration for Russia’s authoritarian strongman Vladimir Putin; called members of the federal judiciary “so-called judges;” and charged the news media with being “the enemy of the people.” He lost the popular vote but claims it was due to voter fraud, and has proceeded to “govern” as if he actually won a popular mandate. And his Cabinet appointments signal a determination to carry out a decidedly reactionary policy agenda long championed by the right wing.
When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press… And I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn from history.

— SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ)

Not for nothing did Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tell NBC News’ Chuck Todd that we must be wary of our new president: “When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press… And I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn from history.”
Yes, we do. And in that light, we should recognize that as much as Trump’s anti-democratic rhetoric and executive orders are driven by his own demagogic nature, they are propelled by four decades of corporate class war, conservative culture war and neoliberal political economy and public policies intended to roll back the democratic rights and achievements of the 1960s and 1930s — including Social Security, which Trump’s own White House budget director has called “a Ponzi scheme.”
Recalling the democratic surge and initiatives of the FDR years, the 1960s witnessed a dramatic renewal of campaigns and legislation to make real the promise of equality and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — including for the poor. Pushed by the new democratic activism and inspired by New Deal precedents, President Lyndon Johnson called for the making of a Great Society and a War on Poverty. A liberal-led Congress moved to enhance American democratic life and enrich the public good. To guarantee civil and political equality, Congress passed historic civil rights, voting rights and fair housing acts and, eschewing racial and religious discrimination, enacted a major reform of the nation’s immigration law. To combat poverty, they made health care a right for the elderly and poor and expanded educational opportunities for children and young people. To assure citizens healthier and safer lives, they instituted laws and created agencies to clean up and make secure the environment, marketplace and workplace. And to advance the Founders’ democratic vision of an informed, culturally aware and historically conscious citizenry, they established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (subsidizing, in part, PBS and NPR) and the National Endowments for the Arts (NEA) and Humanities (NEH).
In those same years, the Supreme Court extended and deepened the reach of the Bill of the Rights by reinforcing the wall of separation between church and state, strengthening the rights of the accused, and acknowledging the right of privacy for women exercising responsibility over their own bodies. And many a state legislature north and west expanded industrial democracy by granting collective bargaining rights to public workers.
Yes, urban rioting and anti-war protests divided our citizens and often overshadowed democratic advances. Nevertheless, Americans had initiated a “rights revolution” and once again enlarged both the “We” in “We the People” and the powers of the people. In the background you could hear echoes of FDR’s famous speech on “The Four Freedoms.”
The democratic surge of the long 1960s terrified not only white supremacists in Dixie and political and religious conservatives and reactionaries nationally, but also corporate chiefs and executives.
The democratic surge of the long 1960s terrified not only white supremacists in Dixie and political and religious conservatives and reactionaries nationally, but also corporate chiefs and executives. They bristled at regulations from federal agencies old and new, and at paying taxes for government programs and “entitlements” (as well as a war in Southeast Asia). They felt threatened by labor unionists, movements of women and people of color, public-interest groups and an “adversary culture” of students, the media, and “value-oriented” scholars and intellectuals. At the same time, US companies were experiencing a “profits squeeze” due to foreign competition, and an oil crisis was contributing to economic “stagflation.” So business leaders called for concerted action against what they saw as “an excess of democracy” that urgently needed subduing.
Organized in such groups as the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Trilateral Commission and the Business Roundtable, corporate executives mobilized to reverse the democratic tide. They undertook intensive lobbying campaigns to block labor, environmental and consumer-rights legislation; enlisted teams of lawyers to do battle with public interest groups and bust unions; underwrote think tank “scholars” to counter the work of liberal pundits and professors; and launched political action committees, public relations campaigns and advertising to propagate pro-corporate views, assail taxes and regulations, and back pro-business political candidates.
Meanwhile, ultra-rich magnates like the Coors and Koch brothers, along with the richly endowed Bradley and John M. Olin foundations, funded efforts to mobilize Christian evangelicals around “culture war” questions like school prayer and abortion and white working people around mantras of law and order and tax reduction. The last was most appealing. As companies moved operations and jobs first south and then overseas, as unionism took a beating, and as wages were frozen or reduced and benefits were cut, voting for politicians who promised to lower taxes seemed an attractive option for many workers, few of whom realized that the greatest tax cuts would go to the very rich.
Liberal and progressive forces sought to defend and advance past democratic achievements, but Democratic President Jimmy Carter turned his back on the legacy of FDR, LBJ and those we would come to call the Greatest Generation. Paving the way for the New Right Republican presidency of Ronald Reagan and the age of neoliberalism, Carter abandoned the liberal agenda of labor, environmentalism and consumer rights in favor of cutting government programs, lowering taxes and deregulating capital.
Republicans moved right, and under Bill Clinton, the Democrats followed suit.
Republicans moved right, and under Bill Clinton, the Democrats followed suit. Liberals and progressives scored occasional victories, especially regarding equal rights for gays and lesbians, but corporate and conservative reaction steadily advanced against freedom, equality and democracy.
In state after state, conservatives have acted to override or circumvent a woman’s right to choose by enacting laws intended to make abortions almost impossible to secure. In state after state, Republicans have sought to suppress the votes of people of color, the poor and students by enacting voter ID laws. After years of trying, they finally succeeded by way of Shelby County v. Holder (2013) in getting a conservative Supreme Court to disembowel the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And in state after state, the corporate and conservative rich have smashed labor unions and effectively suppressed the voices of workers by enacting so-called right to work laws — even, as in Wisconsin in 2011, rescinding the collective bargaining rights of public employees. Who now speaks of industrial democracy?
But Republicans have had no monopoly on subverting democracy and the rights of working people. When and where were workers and environmental activists heard when the Clinton administration negotiated NAFTA and the Obama administration negotiated the now derailed TPP — which Obama saw as central to his “legacy”? When and where were the American people brought into the conversation when the Obama White House negotiated the Affordable Care Act with Big Pharma and the health insurance industry, accepting concessions that would come home to haunt the early successes of the act? And let’s not forget that it was not only Senate Republicans who voted for the Bush administration’s USA Patriot Act in 2001, a law that has critically threatened the privacy of US citizens. Only one Democratic senator dissented, Wisconsin’s Russell Feingold.
We have endured nothing less than 40 years of creeping authoritarianism — and it now appears that it may run right over democracy. Jeff Sessions as attorney general — despite having once been denied a federal judgeship because of his racist proclivities — augurs nothing but ill for civil rights and voting rights. Tom Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services signals efforts to privatize Medicare and even Social Security. And Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education promises to speed up the transfer of dollars from public to private and parochial schools. Thrilling the Republican right all the more, the Trump administration wants to defund the Legal Services Corporation, which provides “financial support for civil legal aid to low income Americans,” the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the NEA and NEH.
Revealing their authoritarian inclinations all the more, right-wing Republican legislators in several states are introducing bills to criminalize protest activities — and, in Iowa, for example — to require that only Republicans be appointed to university faculties.
Roosevelt warned us of what might happen if we did not sustain the “march of democracy.” In a radio address on the eve of the 1938 congressional mid-term elections, with authoritarianism on the rise globally and conservative and reactionary forces in America organizing anew, he said:

As of today, Fascism and Communism — and old-line Tory Republicanism — are not threats to the continuation of our form of government. 
 But I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases
 to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means
 to better the lot of our citizens, then fascism and communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in 
strength in our land.

The Fight for $15, the Moral Monday Movement, the anti-fracking and block-the-pipelines campaigns, Black Lives Matter, and the popular enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders’ run for the 2016 Democratic nomination indicated that Americans were, after many years, reinvigorating the nation’s democratic pulse. And both Hillary Clinton’s popular vote victory and the massive turnout across the United States for the Women’s March on inauguration weekend make clear that our resistance is a movement of the majority.

The die is cast. To secure American democratic life, we must resist and overcome not only the initiatives of the greedy, corrupt, bigoted and narcissistic bully who currently occupies the White House, but also the anti-democratic ambitions and schemes of corporate capital and the right. If our parents and grandparents’ lives tell us anything, it is that it’s not just a matter of rejecting authoritarianism but of acting in solidarity to radically enhance freedom, equality and democracy.But the resistance must be about more than Trump. The democratic energies we expressed in the years and months leading up to November 2016 must lead to a struggle for democracy, which means a sustained struggle against the authoritarianism of both Trump and the reactionary forces that enabled his rise to power and authority. We must resist the future now taking shape in the fevered imagination of those like chief White House strategist Steve Bannon, who once openly admitted to emulating Lenin in wanting to “destroy the state” and wants to push us further and further to the right.

HARVEY J. KAYE

Harvey J. Kaye is the Ben & Joyce Rosenberg Professor of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the author of Thomas Paine and the Promise of America (Farrar, Straus and Giroux) and The Fight for the Four Freedoms: What Made FDR and the Greatest Generation Truly Great (Simon & Schuster). He is currently writing Radicals at Heart: Why Americans Should Embrace their Radical History (The New Press).  Follow him on Twitter: @harveyjkaye.

Beware of Another Reichstag Fire

Published on
by

by

The Nazis used the 1933 Reichstag fire as an excuse for a terror campaign that swept away parliamentary democracy in Germany. (Photo: AP)
As various commentators compare President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, a flurry of responses has claimed that this is an inappropriate comparison because the Nazi regime murdered millions of men, women and children. It is important to remember, however, that when Hitler came to power in 1933, he did not begin with murder. His regime first sought to “encourage emigration” as a means of ridding Germany of the Jews and turned to genocide only when these efforts “failed.” One important motive for studying genocide is to be able to recognize early warning signs so that atrocities might be prevented rather than waiting for them to happen.

As a scholar of the Holocaust, I frequently teach about the Nazi rise to power and the attributes of authoritarian regimes. Such attributes include: a rise to power which is nationalist in nature, with calls to restore the nation to greatness or making reference to a mythic great past; racist or anti-foreign rhetoric; violence or the threat of violence; attacks on the free press and the promulgation of propaganda; marches or rallies to reinforce group cohesion; quashing of political opponents and democratic institutions after rising to power; and stripping away civil liberties. There is often an assumption made by existing elites that the radical leader will normalize once in power, but this normalization does not happen. What I just described were the attributes of Hitler’s rise to powerMussolini’s rise to power, and the rise to power of a number of other authoritarian leaders as well.

What is disturbing to scholars of the Holocaust and genocide is that this also describes President Trump’s actual activities. His slogans, such as “Make America Great Again” or “American First,” and other nationalist rhetoric align with rhetoric historically espoused by authoritarian leaders. “America First” not only has American Nazi historical roots, but it is eerily close to Hitler’s slogan “Deutschland über Alles!” (Germany Above All.) In terms of exhibition of racist and anti-foreign sentiment, President Trump’s attacks on Muslims and Latinos particularly Mexicans, have been pronounced. He has tried to ban foreigners from seven Muslim nations from coming to the United States and taken an aggressive approach toward deporting undocumented immigrants, while calling for a wall between the United States and Mexico. His rhetoric toward Muslims, Latinos, and immigrants includes claims that they are the source of crime and terrorism. This enables the president to attack Muslims and Latinos under the cover of protecting national security or crime prevention.

The president made numerous threats during his campaign predicting violence and revolution if he were not elected. Since coming to power, he has encouraged shows of force, including escalation of aggressive policing, and expressed a desire to display the country’s power with military armaments in the streets of the capital during his inauguration. A cabinet member recently alluded to the possible need for a rapid increase in the number of prisons.

At the same time, Trump’s attacks on the free press have been extreme, including describing the news media as the “enemy of the people,” and excluding several major media outlets from White House briefings. This control of which media outlets have access to administration news conferences and willfully delegitimizing news sources by calling stories he disagrees with “fake news” creates an atmosphere that encourages propaganda and erodes government transparency.

The president’s immediate declaration of his candidacy for 2020 enables him to hold rallies under the pretense of campaigning for a second term. These rallies also serve to reinforce the notion of the Trump’s popularity.

Since taking office, Trump has raged against his political opponents, democracy and civil liberties. He has attacked the judiciary, particularly when it serves as a check on his authority. He has bypassed Congress, using executive orders to make drastic changes in policy. His cabinet has revoked protections for transgender students. He has attempted to ban Muslims from seven countries from coming to the United States and suggested mass deportations. And he has championed the use of torture. This is just a short list of attributes of authoritarian regimes that also characterize the Trump administration.

For most scholars, it is not difficult to see how, in the current climate, with a president whose activities closely parallel those of historic authoritarian leaders, a single crisis might be used to solidify authoritarian power. Trump has repeatedly warned against a terrorist attack that might be perpetrated by an undocumented immigrant. For Hitler, it was the Reichstag fire on Feb. 27, 1933, that led to his political opponents being incarcerated in Dachau.
Helene Sinnreich is a holocaust scholar and director of the Fern and Manfred Steinfeld Program in Judaic Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/02/28/beware-another-reichstag-fire

The Knives Are Out for Steve Bannon: Wall Street Journal Slams Trump Adviser in Scalding Editorial

Joe Scarborough has called him "the most villainous historical figure this side of Stalin or Hitler."


Hits against President Donald Trump’s senior counselor Steve Bannon are circulating Tuesday morning, with “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough saying it’s “hard to find a more villainous historical figure this side of Stalin or Hitler.”
In a blistering editorial from the Wall Street Journal Tuesday, Bannon and his protégé Stephen Miller are described as the architects behind the strategy of polarization being seen in Trump’s White House. The editorial board goes on to blame Bannon and Miller for Trump’s “biggest mistakes of the first five weeks,” namely the immigration executive order, constant flubs over Trump’s Russian ties and retired General Michael Flynn.
The Journal explained that Bannon will never be capable of producing the results that he and Trump are promising. In the end, Bannon may even undermine Trump’s entire agenda. They rejected Trump’s proposed tariffs because they will reduce trade and ultimately slow growth. Similarly, they knocked Trump’s overly severe immigration laws that will ultimately cause a significant labor shortage and force companies to move elsewhere.
Trump’s Bannon-Miller policies are also prompting Republicans to distance themselves and according to The Journal, prompted senators to abandon his Labor Secretary nominee Andy Puzder. Even bruised Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) announced his support for a special prosecutor to investigate Trump, his White House and his campaign for ties to Russia.
However, The Journal proclaimed Trump’s political future will ultimately live and die by the conservative Republican establishment that Bannon has spent his political career fighting. Trump’s own progress will come not from the determination to return to conservative values but from the successes or failures of the economic prosperity he swears is imminent under his leadership. Trump must also meet the promises he made to his base like repealing and replacing Obamacare, passing a substantial tax cut and breaking ground on his “big, beautiful, wall.”
If he’s going to make it happen, The Journal explains Trump’s administration must seek out bipartisanship and not the Bannon-Miller polarization seen on the campaign trail.
Sarah K. Burris writes about politics and technology for Raw Story. 
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/knives-are-out-steve-bannon-wall-street-journal-slams-trump-advisor-scalding

Trump, Putin & New Cold War: What The New Yorker gets wrong

Bryan MacDonald is an Irish journalist, who is based in Russia
Trump, Putin & New Cold War: What The New Yorker gets wrong
The New Yorker made quite a splash with its uber long read on 'Trump, Putin and the New Cold War.' What a shame then the actual product is sloppy, misinformed tosh masquerading as something of highbrow distinction.
When I was a ‘cub’ reporter in Ireland, juggling study with coverage of anything from Barn Dances to Basketball, payment came from lineage. A hideous measure which promoted loquaciousness at the expense of brevity. The compensation was dreadful, set at the measly sum of twenty pence a line. Thus, making a carefully crafted Rugby report worth about the price of a few beers, a pack of Marlboro and a small pizza. That said, if you padded it out, it might extend to a large one, with extra anchovies.
One day my impressionable young self met an American journalist in Dublin, who told me of a magazine called ‘The New Yorker’ where the generous publishers paid one dollar a WORD. Meaning its sports writers, if it had any, probably eschewed lager, chips and bus journeys for oysters, champagne, and travel by Concorde.
Twenty years later, assuming the title has kept up with inflation, the writers must be on gallons of the fizzy stuff. Because they are clearly taking the piss. How else to explain this March’s lead story, which amounts to a small anti-Russia novella that manages, over 13,000 words, to deliver zero new information to readers. But instead delivers plenty of elementary mistakes and misrepresentations, suggesting the three authors (yes, three!) phoned it in.
This is lackadaisical, trite, obtuse, fallacious hackery at its most inglorious. Penned by a trio of long-winded malingerers, shameless prevaricators and ghastly runtish, repellent, cheerless, petulant gnomes with an ingrained and sophistic loathing of Russia. And here they are trying to push the word-o-meter to its maximum.

Vorsprung Durch Technik?

To be fair, the magazine’s retro cover has been a hit on social media. Although I find the Cyrillic masthead pretentious. Then there’s the introduction to the essay itself. Featuring hellish black and blood red colors depicting an upside down St Basil’s Cathedral shooting a laser beam into the White House, like a bad illustration from a sci-fi comic book, designed by a dyslexic bat. But, then again, all art is subjective really, isn’t it?
As ever, when Westerners profile Russia expectations are pretty low, but these wordsmiths even conspire to live down to the usual humble prospects. David Remnick, who has been editor of the title since 1998 and is evidently as stale as ten-day-old bread, is joined by Evan Osnos, a new name on the Russia beat. And their man in Moscow is Joshua Yaffa, one of those “fellow” chaps, representing a US State Department-funded concern called New America.”
In the parallel universe The New Yorker occupies when it comes to Russia, in common with pretty much all its peers, everything Moscow does is nefarious and if America makes mistakes, it’s never intentional. The usual Uncle Sam as an eternal toddler stuff, which must always be forgiven because of its cute smile. As a result, Washington’s open interference in Russia politics is never mentioned.
For instance, a balanced article could draw on 1996 when Americans openly intervened to deliver Boris Yeltsin to victory over the less favorable Gennady Zyuganov. Or the outspoken support of US officials for the 2011-2012 Bolotnaya protests. In this case, the serving US ambassador even invited the leaders to his embassy.

Bad Kremlin

Instead, it’s bash Russia time in an opus riddled with fundamental errors. Like when it pours over “anti-Moscow 'color revolutions,' in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders.” Without apparently realizing how Ukraine’s twice-shafted Viktor Yanukovich was a convicted petty criminal in the USSR and upon its fall in 1991 was a regional transport executive with all the power of a spent light bulb. Or how it claims former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev “made a crucial decision not to veto an American-backed UN Security Council resolution in favor of military action in Libya.”
Because this is just disingenuous, given how Russia agreed to the establishment of a 'no-fly zone' over the unfortunate country, not the full-scale NATO “regime change” operation that followed. At no point does The New Yorker acknowledge Moscow’s subsequent disgust at what it perceived as an outrageous breach of trust by its Western partners.
While these are especially blatant examples, there are many others. But given the length of the text, the easiest way to disassemble is to unravel it piece by piece. Here are the ‘highlights,’ but there were many more to choose from.
NEW YORKER:  Five years ago, he (Putin) blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow’s Bolotnaya Square. “She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave the signal,” Putin said. “They heard this and, with the support of the US State Department, began active work.” (No evidence was provided for the accusation).
REALITY: As mentioned above, the then US ambassador, Michael McFaul invited the protest leaders to the US embassy. Which, given the relative support levels and the anti-establishment nature of both movements, would have been precisely the same as his Russian equivalent bringing Occupy Wall Street members to his consulate. Furthermore, the magazine doesn’t consider that perhaps Putin received this information from intelligence agencies? As we have just seen in America, they don’t seem to need to provide evidence for their findings to become accepted gospel truth these days. In fact, this entire article is precisely based on the assumption of how “the DNC hacks, many analysts believe, were just a skirmish in a larger war against Western institutions and alliances” (to quote the intro). As we all know, there is no actual proof of Kremlin involvement in the DNC hacks. Indeed, WikiLeaks itself has said the Russian government was not its source. And its envoy claimed that a “disgusted” whistleblower was responsible.
NEW YORKER:  In early January, two weeks before the Inauguration, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released a declassified report concluding that Putin had ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton’s election prospects, fortify Donald Trump’s, and “undermine public faith in the US democratic process.” The declassified report provides more assertion than evidence. Intelligence officers say that this was necessary to protect their information-gathering methods. Critics of the report had repeatedly noted that intelligence agencies, in the months before the Iraq War, endorsed faulty assessments concerning weapons of mass destruction. But the intelligence community was deeply divided over the actual extent of Iraq’s weapons development; the question of Russia’s responsibility for cyberattacks in the 2016 election has produced no such tumult. Seventeen federal intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia was responsible for the hacking.
REALITY: This is not entirely true. As many others have pointed out, the NSA (i.e., the agency most likely to know, because it can monitor communications) has offered only ‘moderate’ support.
NEW YORKER:  Another Administration official said that, during the transfer of power, classified intelligence had shown multiple contacts between Trump associates and Russian representatives, but nothing that rose to the level of aiding or coordinating the interference with the election.
REALITY: Obama’s team had much the same level of contacts. In fact, his chief “Russia hand,” McFaul, even visited Moscow during the 2008 transition to speak to Russian officials.

Was in October 2008, but yes, I did meet with Russian officials then (as I always had when visiting Moscow for previous 25 years) https://twitter.com/27khv/status/836200610324168705 
And there was nothing wrong in what McFaul did. For example, Bill Clinton's point man on Russia and Eastern Europe was considered a source of intelligence information and classified as "a special unofficial contact" by SVR. The man concerned, Strobe Talbot, correctly pointed out how it was an exaggeration of chats he had with the Russian ambassador to Canada, Georgiy Mamedov.
Additionally, Henry Kissinger has maintained intensive contacts with Moscow for decades. Yet every recent American president has sought his advice. And George W. Bush's Russia expert, Elizabeth Jones, actually grew up in Moscow and attended local Russian schools.
NEW YORKER:  Russian security concerns were hardly the only issue at stake with respect to the expansion of NATO; Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other countries in the region were now sovereign and wanted protection… Putin, in his first few years in office, was relatively solicitous of the West. He was the first foreign leader to call George W. Bush after the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. When he spoke at the Bundestag, later that month, he addressed its members in German, the language that he had spoken as a KGB agent in Dresden. He even entertained the notion of Russian membership in NATO. America’s invasion of Iraq, which Putin opposed, marked a change in his thinking.
REALITY: Protection from what exactly? In the 1990’s, nobody was threatening anyone and Russia was both on its knees and desperately trying to join the Western fold, under the famously pro-American Boris Yeltsin. Indeed, as acknowledged by the magazine, during his early years in office, Putin continued the same posture, before becoming embittered by NATO expansion and the illegal Iraq War. There have been countless academic articles, from genuine experts, backing up this view. And even George Kennan, the most celebrated American Russia analyst of the twentieth century, agreed. Thus, NATO’s overreach eastwards has caused the exact problem that NATO purportedly exists to circumvent: insecurity in Europe. In this sense, it was like employing a team of golden retrievers to clean up shredded canine hair. Also, is it such a big surprise that the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, based on obviously false evidence, without a UN mandate, would affect the thinking of a government which regards its UN veto as an important defense tool?
NEW YORKER:  He (Putin) was alarmed by the Obama Administration’s embrace of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. And he was infuriated by the US-led assault on Muammar Qaddafi’s regime.
REALITY: This is presented as something irrational, and comes without proper context. However, given that Russia is home to around 20 million Muslims, and has a history of problems with Islamist terrorism, what’s unusual about Putin being concerned about secular, stable (if obnoxious) regimes in the Middle East being replaced by (obviously even more obnoxious) radical Islamists? Also, he was infuriated about Qaddafi, because as mentioned earlier, the mandate the UN agreed to was for a 'no-fly zone' - not a fully fledged NATO campaign of airstrikes, coordinated with the opposition.



POLL: Trump Administration More Trustworthy Than Media. In fairness, not very hard to beat. http://crwd.fr/2k6yvru 
NEW YORKER:  Russian television, of course, covered the siege of Aleppo as an enlightened act of liberation, free of any brutality or abuses.
REALITY: Which is more or less exactly how American and British TV covered the “liberation” of Baghdad in 2003. Check out this extraordinary report from BBC’s Andrew Marr. Who later became the channel's political editor.
NEW YORKER:  And yet Russian military planners and officials in the Kremlin regarded Georgia as a failure in the realm of international propaganda.
REALITY: It’s not hard to see why. Even to this day, US news outlets (and the aforementioned McFaul who definitely knows better) continue to insist that Russia attacked Georgia. But in actual fact, the EU’s independent investigation into the conflict ruled that Georgia started the war.
NEW YORKER:  The United States, meanwhile, had its own notable cyberwar success. In 2008, in tandem with Israeli intelligence, the US launched the first digital attack on another country’s critical infrastructure, deploying a “worm,” known as Stuxnet, that was designed to cause centrifuges in Iran to spin out of control and thereby delay its nuclear development.
REALITY: This admitted act of aggression is given a sentence, but an incident in Estonia in 2007 (never proved to have been Russian state ordered) is highlighted over many paragraphs complete with quotes from the country’s former President Toomas Ilves.
NEW YORKER:  Obama’s adviser Benjamin Rhodes said that Russia’s aggressiveness had accelerated since the first demonstrations on Maidan Square, in Kiev. “When the history books are written, it will be said that a couple of weeks on the Maidan is where this went from being a Cold War-style competition to a much bigger deal,” he said. “Putin’s unwillingness to abide by any norms began at that point. It went from provocative to disrespectful of any international boundary.”
REALITY: Even though they have 13,000 words to play with, our heroes never consider other aspects of Maidan. Such as, was it normal for serving US and EU officials to turn up at the rallies and more or less encourage protestors to overthrow their democratically elected government? Indeed, it looked like the rock star style adulation went to their heads. Furthermore, what authority did US official’s Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt have to choose the subsequent regime in Kiev?
NEW YORKER:  Bruno Kahl, the head of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, has expressed concern that Russian hackers are also trying to disrupt the German political scene, where Chancellor Angela Merkel is standing for reelection as a stalwart supporter of NATO and the EU.
REALITY: German intelligence recently admitted that it found no evidence of Russian election hacking after insinuations of such activity was breathlessly carried by popular media last year. Notably, the “all clear” given to Moscow was ignored by the same outlets. Also, this whole premise is a bit illogical, seeing as the only realistic alternative to Merkel - the SPD led by Martin Schultz - is even more pro-EU than her CDU party. And Schultz himself has spent most of his adult life working in Brussels, home to both the EU and NATO.
NEW YORKER:  While officials in the Obama Administration struggled with how to respond to the cyberattacks, it began to dawn on them that a torrent of “fake news” reports about Hillary Clinton was being generated in Russia and through social media.
REALITY: It’s been proven the “fake news” was primarily generated in America itself and in Macedonia. Not Russia.
NEW YORKER:  Russia’s political hierarchy and official press greeted Trump’s Inauguration with unreserved glee.
REALITY: Given Clinton’s aggressive anti-Russia rhetoric, during which she compared Putin to Adolf Hitler, why is this a surprise? Especially when Trump had spoken of trying to mend fences with Moscow? The words “straw”“at” and “clutching” come to mind.
And we shall leave it there. Because I’ve just breached the 2,500-word barrier myself and am in danger of resembling those I reprimand. Meanwhile, dear reader you may well have bitten off all your fingernails by now. If you’ve made it this far.
As for The New Yorker, their approach to covering Russia appears to be inspired by the great Samuel Beckett and his excellent observation: "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." Perhaps they'd be better off listening to my late grandfather, Paddy, born the same year, who used to say, spade in hand, "you may as well do a job properly as do it at all." He was right.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.