Everyone knows that westerners have a short attention span these days.  So, just in case you, dear western reader or viewer, may have forgotten since yesterday, here’s another daily reminder:  Russia is a backwards hellhole.

Got it?

Nothing good ever happens there.  Not ever.

Everyone is miserable beyond belief.  Everyone.

Except maybe president Putin, as he frolics with his 365 different girlfriends and counts his billions of stolen rubles that he keeps stashed in the underground bunker of his opulent mansion at an undisclosed location.

This was my thought as I read Boyd Tonkins’ review of Svetlana Alexievich’s Second Hand Time, a book that reportedly follows 10 families in the post-Soviet era.

I haven’t yet had the pleasure of reading the book, but the portrayal by Tonkins in his review (titled “The Hopeless Wasteland of Modern Russia”) pretty much fits the now hackneyed caricature of Russia presented in the corporate western media.

I couldn’t help but wonder how a book might portray the U.S. to a foreign audience if it followed this same formula:  only talk about the worst aspects of life in the U.S., magnify it greatly, add in some cheesy melodrama and soap suds, and repeat ad nauseum.

Perhaps it would look something like this:  half of the population has committed suicide and the other half would probably like to; Obama is personally responsible for every bad thing that happens in every corner of the U.S., from sea to shining sea; 90% of Americans are currently drowning their sorrows in methamphetamine or Oxycontin; every single person of color is killed by the police; everyone is homeless; all Americans, to show how noble and philosophical they are in their misery, go around quoting Theodore Dreiser and James Baldwin.

Some choice quotes from long-suffering Americans may include:

“You can’t buy democracy with loads of corporate cash…you needed free elections and we didn’t have them.”

“Yes, we stood in line for Black Friday at WalMart…but it was America and we loved it.”

“Hillary the Democrat is our shortest joke.”

“From the genocide of the Native Americans and slavery to recent massacres in Iraq and Libya, blood soaks the pages.”

Now, I’m not suggesting that anyone whitewash any country’s history or leadership.  However, most Americans – if the shoe were on the other foot – would probably get tired of seeing their country, despite its many faults, constantly talked about only in this light, with no nuance, no complexity and no context.  This would be especially true if the one engaging in this kind of depiction had such a hard time seeing the mote in their own eye and spent more time haranguing about someone else’s supposed faults than they did fixing their own myriad problems.

But I guess that’s the benefit of being exceptional and indispensable.

(To read the original review by Boyd Tonkins that inspired this satirical post, go to http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/the-hopeless-wasteland-of-modern-russia/)

(http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49285.htm)

Apologies for so many posts, but this is a period of more tensions between US/NATO and Russia since the Cuban Missile Crisis and we need to pay attention to this issue since Americans seem to be distracted with the presidential election and other items.

Listen to Stephen Cohen’s latest interview with John Batchelor for more on NATO’s military exercises in the Black Sea – the equivalent of China or Russia’s military conducting exercises in the Gulf of Mexico, how the Kremlin perceives these provocative actions, and politics toward Russia of Poland and the Baltic nations.

https://audioboom.com/boos/4667614-anakonda-16-on-the-russian-frontier-stephen-f-cohen-nyu-princeton-eastwestaccord-com

(President Kennedy delivers the commencement address at American University, Monday, June 10, 1963. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech)

Although John Kennedy had shown some liberal and anti-colonialist leanings on certain issues throughout his political career, he began his presidency as a firm believer in the Cold War narrative.   He had even campaigned on the promise of fixing the reported missile gap the U.S. had with the Soviet Union – a gap he found, after taking office, did indeed exist but very much in the U.S.’s favor.

Early in his presidency, Kennedy was flabbergasted to hear the head of his Joint Chiefs of Staff, Curtis LeMay, and other military advisers talk seriously of a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union during meetings in which estimated casualties of over 100 million Soviets and tens of millions of Americans in reprisal attacks were cavalierly tossed around.  This no doubt led to Kennedy’s decision to have meetings with his advisers during the Cuban missile crisis secretly tape recorded.  Those tapes were released and transcribed in the 1990’s, offering a window into the demented mindset of those at the highest echelons of power during the most dangerous moment in human history.  Several of those same advisers encouraged the president to escalate.  Fortunately, Kennedy had both the wisdom and the courage to resist such pressure.

Due to secret back channel correspondence that had existed between Khrushchev and Kennedy from 1961, the president had developed somewhat of a rapport with the Soviet premier.  Despite their obvious political differences, they were each aware of the pressures the other faced from hawkish factions in Washington and the Kremlin.  Nevertheless, there were many missteps and errors in judgment that led to the crisis.

Khrushchev interpreted comments made by Kennedy in a March 1962 interview with The Saturday Evening Post as a first strike threat.  This, combined with Washington’s continued actions aimed at overthrowing Soviet ally, Fidel Castro in Cuba, prompted Khrushchev to place nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island.

One of the worst moments of the crisis, when a nuclear war seemed imminent – at one point, Khrushchev ordered Soviet ships to halt just miles away from breaching the US blockade in order to de-escalate the dangerous game of chicken – actually served as a strange but powerful bonding experience for the two leaders in the sense that both men were terrified of their glimpse into the abyss and resolved to negotiate a subsequent end to the Cold War and to ensure disarmament.

This was the backdrop to Kennedy’s speech at American University the following June.  The President wanted to set the world on a path toward peaceful co-existence and believed he could work with Khrushchev toward this end.  However, he was keenly aware of both Khrushchev’s humiliation before the Kremlin hawks who saw the premier’s “retreat” during the crisis as a defeat and those in Washington who would obstruct such a policy.

Meanwhile, a nuclear test ban treaty had stalled due to disagreements over the number of inspections the Soviets would allow, fearing inspections would be used as a cover for espionage.  Kennedy realized he needed to extend an olive branch to the Soviets while also appealing to the American public, which he sensed had drawn the same lessons from the crisis and would be receptive, thereby sidestepping powerful elements who would oppose such a peace initiative.

Kennedy tapped his assistant, Theodore Sorensen, who had been with him since his days in the Senate, to draft the speech while Kennedy reviewed and advised the process.  Only a few select members of Kennedy’s staff were even aware that Kennedy planned a momentous speech as the president had learned by this point not to trust his military advisers, the CIA or the State Department.

What Sorensen and Kennedy created was a speech of great elegance and wisdom.  It has continuing relevance to U.S. foreign policy today, particularly as it relates to Russia.

Several important points were made in the speech:  First, that pursuing peace had not been treated with the same allure and fascination in our culture as war (e.g. guts and glory).

Second, he challenged the notion that pursuing peace was quixotic or too abstract.  He made the point that it could, in fact, be broken down into concrete and manageable steps if the political will was there. Indeed, if practical steps were taken toward peaceful conflict resolution, then such actions would develop a momentum of their own.

Third, he warned against self-righteousness and a superiority complex toward Russia. Furthermore, regardless of differences over politics or government, we should never dehumanize the other, but acknowledge the others’ culture and accomplishments.  This warning would prove to be particularly prophetic after the U.S.’s perceived “victory” in the Cold War and subsequent attitude and policy toward Russia.

Fourth, he recognized that we will never see the end of conflict, but we can have peaceful methods of resolving conflict.

Kennedy let the Kremlin know beforehand of his impending speech. Khrushchev’s response was very positive, allowing the speech to eventually be heard and read uncensored throughout the Soviet Union, which normally spent significant resources jamming all western broadcasts.  Unfortunately, the speech was largely ignored or ridiculed in the U.S.

Watch the speech here:

Or read the transcript here:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9266

As the Polish-led Anaconda military exercises were underway as part of NATO’s continuing military moves, on the heels of the recent installation of a controversial missile defense shield in Romania, The Real News Network interviewed British Russia scholar Richard Sakwa about the potential for dangerous consequences if the pattern of escalation continues between NATO and Russia.

Sakwa also discusses the unresolved nature of the historical grievances of Poland and the Baltic states in relation to Russia and how this plays into the dangerous (and unnecessary) rhetoric, which is contributing to a re-militarization of Europe, while NATO politics is enabling rather than preventing peaceful resolution.  Lack of dialogue between NATO and Russia, suspended on the part of NATO in 2014, also contributes to a dangerous atmosphere where a small incident could turn into a flashpoint for war.

Listen to the interview here:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16506

Note that this is a 2-part interview and the second part will automatically load after the first part is finished.  Total time is approx. 20 minutes.

Also, Paul Robinson discusses the nuanced interplay of several factors that best explain Russia’s foreign policy.

Read the article here:

Explaining Russian assertiveness

(Meeting of Public Council in Krasnodar, Russia; October 2015; photo by Natylie S. Baldwin)

It is my understanding that it is not unusual for Russia to draft a law attempting to address some problem or issue, only to realize once it has been passed that it is problematic or not being implemented.  In cases like this it is often discovered that such a law is viewed by local bureaucrats as so vaguely worded that they don’t bother implementing it.  Or, conversely, it is abused by local bureaucrats.   The Russian government often has to review and amend such laws.

The Moscow Times reported on May 18th that the Russian government has amended the controversial foreign agents law to exclude charities and cultural organizations:

“Charities are no longer to be classified as “foreign agents” if they receive money from abroad, according to a new amendment approved by the Russian State Duma.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in areas such as art and culture will also be exempt from the “foreign agent” label, the Interfax news agency reported Tuesday.”

About a year from now, I intend to follow up with the civil society activists I interviewed in Krasnodar and see how the change in the law is playing out on the ground.

Read the full article here:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/569726.html