New York Times’ Afghanistan ‘bounty’ story isn’t about Russia, it is geared toward influencing US home political struggles


By Paul Robinson, a professor on the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet historical past, army historical past, and army ethics.

I’ve stated earlier than, and little doubt will say once more, that depictions of Russia typically have little to do with Russia itself and are extra about these doing the depiction.

For many within the Western world, Russia is, and lengthy has been, a big ‘other’, comparability with which serves a helpful function within the creation of self-identity. Beyond that, adverse (and occasionally even optimistic) portrayals of Russia feed into home political struggles and assist legitimize one aspect or one other in no matter argument individuals are having.

Whether these portrayals of Russia are correct is neither right here nor there. What issues is their influence on home politics.

Of course, this isn’t a tough and quick rule, however historians who’ve checked out how Westerners have seen Russia over the course of time have amassed sufficient proof to point out that it’s typically the case. If you doubt it, then you might have merely to have a look at what has occurred within the United States prior to now 4 years, throughout which era Russia has been elevated into enemy primary, an allegedly existential risk which is on the cusp of destroying American democracy and plunging the nation into civil strife.

Read extra

New York Times takes anti-Russian hysteria to new level with report on Russian ‘bounty’ for US troops in Afghanistan

New York Times takes anti-Russian hysteria to new level with report on Russian ‘bounty’ for US troops in Afghanistan

The level of the Russiagate hysteria has by no means been Russia itself. Rather it has been to delegitimize the election of Donald Trump as American president by portraying him as, in impact, a traitor, who has offered out his nation to a international enemy. This narrative, after all, presupposes a international enemy, for which function one has needed to be created, and Russia has confirmed a handy candidate for the position.

It is that this, I believe, which explains the newest Russia scandal to strike the United States – the declare this week within the New York Times that Russian army intelligence has been paying the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill Americans. I’m, after all, not ready to testify as to the accuracy of the grievance, however like others am deeply skeptical of something that’s based mostly solely on the testimony of nameless intelligence officers and that lacks any supporting proof.

Unsurprisingly, the New York Times’s story has led to a lot derision, being interpreted as an indication as soon as once more of the deeply Russophobic nature of the American press. I believe, although, that that interpretation might miss the purpose, which is that the story, like so many others, isn’t actually about Russia however fairly one more effort to discredit Donald Trump as a puppet within the management of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This is as a result of a key facet of the story was an allegation that Trump had been briefed about Russia’s nefarious exercise however had finished nothing in response. As could be anticipated, Trump’s enemies within the media have been fast to take advantage of the story to assault the president. For occasion, MSNBC’s prime Russiagate cheerleader Rachel Maddow had this to say:

“Not only does the president know… there was that unexpected and friendly conversation he had with Putin… President Trump got off that call with Putin and immediately began calling for Russia to be allowed back into the G7… That’s how Trump is standing up for Americans being killed for rubles paid by Putin’s government.”

Maddow’s colleague, MSNBC morning information host Joe Scarborough, adopted swimsuit. “Donald Trump has known about Putin killing Americans for months and has refused even to condemn Russia diplomatically. What Republican senator will speak out against this shocking dereliction of duty?” he tweeted. Other journalists have been equally outright of their condemnation. “While Trump was cozying up to Putin, Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American troops in Afghanistan,” stated GQ’s Laura Bassett on Twitter; and so forth.

Also on Caitlin Johnstone: It is the US intelligence’s job to deceive you. NYT’s Afghan bounty story is CIA press launch disguised as information

Whether any of this was true was one thing that none of those journalists bothered to ask. They merely assumed that it was, for the apparent motive that at all times assuming the worst about Russia fits their political agenda. Most notably, Trump’s electoral rival, Joe Biden, stated this concerning the president:

“Not solely has he didn’t sanction or impose any form of penalties on Russia for this egregious violation of worldwide regulation, however Donald Trump has additionally continued his embarrassing marketing campaign of deference and debasing himself earlier than Vladimir Putin… His total presidency has been a present to Putin, however that is past the pale. It’s a betrayal of essentially the most sacred responsibility we bear as a nation, to guard and equip our troops after we ship them into hurt’s approach.”

Read extra

There they go again: NYT serves up spy fantasy about Russian ‘bounties’ on US troops in Afghanistan

There they go again: NYT serves up spy fantasy about Russian ‘bounties’ on US troops in Afghanistan

The downside with all that is that, as with a lot of Russiagate, it seems to be totally false. The White House instantly denied any data of the Afghanistan story, and the Director of National Intelligence backed up Trump by confirming that, certainly, the president had by no means been knowledgeable concerning the alleged Russian exercise. As so typically, The New York Times seems to have been peddling “fake news”. None of this, nonetheless, has stopped Trump’s opponents from seizing on the story as additional proof of the president’s treachery.

The query in my thoughts is what is going to occur ought to Trump lose the presidential election in November, an consequence that now appears doubtless. It strikes me that there are two potentialities. The first is that the Democratic Party and its supporters will lose curiosity in tales of alleged Russian malevolence, as they may now not be wanted. A Biden victory in November might, subsequently, result in a lessening within the present rhetorical pressure.

The second risk is that nothing will change. Democrats, I fear, have come to imagine the nonsense that they’ve been peddling, to the extent that it’s turn out to be half and parcel of who they’re. They are subsequently incapable of altering course and can govern on the idea of the prejudices they’ve generated in themselves over the previous few years. I want to suppose that the primary risk will come to move, however I’ve to say that I’m not too optimistic.

As for what is going to occur within the occasion that Trump is re-elected, I dread to suppose. But at that time, America may properly be engulfed in flames, and Russia would be the least of anyone’s issues.

This article initially appeared on Paul Robinson’s weblog ‘Irrussianality’.  

Think your mates would have an interest? Share this story!