Is Trump Being Penned by Russophobes?

With the initial diversity of advisers and cabinet appointees in the Trump Administration matters were not going to be straight-forward. Because Trump does not have any ideological background he is cast adrift with some broad ideas of a populist nature, which are identified with the traditional Right, or palaeoconservativism, while he chose his Cabinet from among many who are antithetical to ‘America First’ and trade protectionism, on the assumption that he was getting conservatives of one type or another that stood for such issues. Hence the presence of Goldman Sachs eminences at the Cabinet’s top finance jobs, and ‘Israel Firsters’ who cannot or will not make a distinction between U.S. interests and those of Israel.

Flynn Axed

Despite some worrying aspects of General Mike Flynn as Trump’s initial choice for National Security adviser, such as his adherence to a messianic U.S. ‘world mission’, he was unacceptable to both liberal and neocon Russophobes because of his not being on board with their common fear of a resurgent Russia. While the global oligarchy and its NGOs indulge regularly in private diplomacy, to the extent of overthrowing governments, the Russophobes seized on General Flynn’s inconsequential comments to a Russian diplomat in regard to Trump’s attitude towards Obama’s sanctions against Russia. Reiterating what was publicly known provided a pretext for the Russophobe axis, and their whores in the mass media, to bray for Flynn’s resignation. The alternative was for the Russophobes to be told to collectively ‘get stuffed’, and Trump should have done so.

General McMasters

So with the purging of Flynn in short order Trump appointed Lt. General H. R. McMaster. He seems an excellent choice in many ways. What creates suspicion is the praise he receives from the mass media and other obsessive complainers against every move made by Trump. One should ask, then, why in the opinion of these, has Trump made a good choice in McMaster?

Forbes columnist John Baldoni opines that McMaster could keep Trump in line. In patronising tones towards Trump, Baldoni writes of McMaster: ‘He must find ways to connect his orthodoxy with Trump’s unorthodoxy in ways that are understandable to the commander in chief’. In particular, it is hoped that McMaster can diminish the influence of Stephen Bannon, the number one bugaboo of the oligarchs and their whores on the Left. (John Baldoni, ‘How General H. R. McMasters can Lead the President’, Forbes, 20 February 2017, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbaldoni/2017/02/20/how-general-h-r-mcmaster-can-lead-the-president/#663022da5fcd).

So why does McMaster provide such hope for the oligarchic-left-liberal axis? Unlike Flynn, he is noted for his antagonism towards a resurgent Russia. Politico Magazine columnist Brian Bender wrote of McMaster at the Pentagon in April 2016 as having a new ‘target’: ‘Moscow’. Following Russia’s response to the U.S./oligarchic-sponsored mobs in the Ukraine, McMastersoversaw a ‘high level’ study on the USA’s options in responding to Russia:

‘McMaster’s response is the Russia New Generation Warfare Study, whose government participants have already made several unpublicized trips to the front lines in Ukraine. The high-level but low-profile effort is intended to ignite a wholesale rethinking—and possibly even a redesign—of the Army in the event it has to confront the Russians in Eastern Europe’. (Bryan Bender, ‘The Secret U.S. Army Study that Targets Moscow’, Politico Magazine, 14 April 2016, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/moscow-pentagon-us-secret-study-213811)

Wargame Simulation run by U.S. NGO

Hence, McMaster’s attitude towards Russia is confrontational, in contrast to that of Flynn’s. ‘Russia’s new generation warfare’ is the term of the Russophobic axis to whatever action Russia takes among a long list of possibilities, when defending its own interests, including responses to U.S./NATO provocations on Russia’s borders. The think tank, The Potomac Foundation, lists these Russian ‘new generation warfare’ tactics, all of which apply to actions that have long been undertaken by the USA, especially in those states on Russia’s borders. (‘Russia’s new generation warfare’, The Potomac Foundation, 13 May 2016, http://www.thepotomacfoundation.org/russias-new-generation-warfare-2/). The Potomac staff and fellows include General Wesley C. Clark and others associated with U.S. Defense, NATO, and states bordering Russia. Here is something of Potomac’s latest activities:

‘The Potomac Foundation and the Casimir Pulaski Foundation hosted their first joint Baltic Security Scenario Simulation in Warsaw, Poland on January 23-26, 2017. The purpose of this wargaming initiative is to assist the Polish national security decision-makers in the development of a regional and NATO accepted understanding of the nature of the Russian military threat to the Baltic States and Poland… Wargame participants included defense experts and government representatives from Poland, the United States, Baltic and Nordic countries.’ (‘Baltic Security Scenario simulation in Poland’, 19 January 2017, http://www.thepotomacfoundation.org/baltic-security-scenario-simulation-in-poland/#more-917).

Is it not worrying that an NGO in conjunction with sundry government and military officials from the USA, Poland and elsewhere, can undertake joint programme’s that simulate war against Russia? Such belligerence against Russia is described in a nonchalant manner, indicating the collective sociopathy among the Russophobes, when any defensive measure by Russia is termed ‘aggressive’, yet war strategies against Russia are routine normality.

Not surprisingly, the Casimir Pulaski Foundation, a wide-ranging Polish-based NGO, is associated with Soros through the Batory Foundation, at least. Sponsoring transnational corporations include mainly those of the weapons industry: Lockheed Martin, MBDA Missile Systems, MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System), Raytheon, Saab Technologies, WB Electronics, Defence 24. The European Academy of Diplomacy, a Pulaski Foundation sponsor, recently featured as its guest of honour Mikhail Khodorkovsy at the inauguration of the Academy of Young Diplomats (https://diplomats.pl/mikhail-khodorkovsky-guest-honor-inauguration-academy-young-diplomats/). Among its advisers is Zbigniew Brzezinski. This alliance of plutocrats, largely including weapons manufacturers in this case, with left-liberal NGOs posturing behind the slogans of ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, is common.

General Mattis

General Jim Mattis, Secretary of Defense, does not concede that the USA can co-operate with Russia on any level. He stated at a conference of the Heritage Foundation that Russia’s defence of Donbas and Crimea should have been regarded as ‘much more serious’ by the Obama Administration. (General stating Russian aggression in Ukraine "much more severe" than U.S. treats it may become Defense Secretary’, 19 November 2016, https://www.unian.info/world/1632767-general-stating-russian-aggression-in-ukraine-much-more-severe-than-ustreats-it-may-become-defense-secretary.html). Described by Trump as the ‘nearest we have to General George Patton’, Mattis rejected Trump’s conciliatory attitude towards Russia from the start. William Kristol, Israel First neocon eminence, even sought to have Mattis run for the presidency, and he was also sought as a campaign speaker by Hillary Clinton. (‘James Mattis, Outspoken Retired Marine, Is Trump’s Choice as Defense Secretary’, New York Times, 1 December 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/james-mattis-secrtary-of-defense-trump.html?_r=0).

ABC News reported:

‘The Trump administration signaled Thursday there will be no change soon in U.S.-Russian relations, putting the onus on Moscow to prove itself if it wants closer cooperation with Washington. Russia's support for Ukrainian separatists was underscored as a test case of its willingness to change behavior.

‘At a NATO meeting in Brussels, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis made clear the United States isn't ready to collaborate militarily with its former Cold War foe against the Islamic State or other threats, a long-standing goal of the Kremlin's which new U.S. President Donald Trump says he wants, too. After meeting with Russia's top diplomat in Germany, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Moscow first must help stop violence in Ukraine’. (Top Trump envoys signal no quick changes to US-Russia ties’,  ABC News, 16 Feburary 2017, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/mattis-us-ready-collaborate-militarily-russia-45531272)

Tillerson Succumbed?

While Mattis stated that Russia would have to ‘prove’ herself, that is, acquiesce to the ‘world order’, Secretary Tillerson, who was widely assumed to favour rapport with Russia, having been awarded a friendship medal, has indicated that the Russophobes have nothing to worry about from him either. In the wake of Flynn’s departure, the ABC report states, there was no discussion on the lifting of U.S. sanctions against Russia. The belligerence remains, and is perhaps worsening:

‘But tensions clearly remained. A remark by Mattis at the NATO meeting about negotiating with Russia "from a position of strength" prompted a sharp response from Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who said such a strategy was "futile." Asked about Shoigu's reaction, Mattis said: "I have no need to respond to the Russian statement at all."’ (Ibid.).

It seems that with Flynn pushed out, and Tillerson towing the party line, the Russophobes have taken over the Trump Administration in prompt manner and without much, if any, difficulty. The extent to which Trump has been cornered, and whether he can break out, or whether he even wants to, remains to be seen.

John Bolton

An ominous sign for the future is that John Bolton, who had been a primary contender for the position of National Security adviser, is said by Trump to have been selected to serve his Administration in another capacity. The mind boggles at the prospect. He is another Russophobe who was quick to accept the Russian hacking myth and regarded Obama’s response as insufficient. An Amercian hegemonist of the most fanatical variety, he made it clear that Russia should be pushed out of any role in world affairs as a hindrance to Amercian supremacy:

‘Every extension of Russian influence in the Middle East is negative for American national interests, up to and including their new airbase at Latakia. And I think finding ways to limit and eventually remove Russian influence in the region, which is already trouble enough for all kinds of reasons, should be the highest priority’. (‘John Bolton splits with Trump on retaliation for Russian hacking’, The Blaze, 30 December 2016, ww.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/30/john-bolton-splits-with-trump-on-retaliation-for-russian-hacking/)

With these Russophobes, along with Vice President Pence, one might now begin to ask what will become of President Trump’s goodwill towards Russia and Putin for which he, during the presidential campaign, received such pillorying? The further down this path he goes the deeper the quagmire.