Two
Views of the Putin/Trump Summit
Paul
Craig Roberts
29
June, 2018
The
meeting that the Deep State strived to make impossible with
fabricated “Russiagate” assertions and an orchestrated
“investigation” by Mueller has now been set in place by no less
than Deep State neocon operative John Bolton. Patrick Lang explains
how this came about:
Many
see benefits from the Putin/Trump meeting.
For
example: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/06/25/these-are-benefits-of-us-russia-summit.html
Putin
himself sees benefits in the meeting as does Trump. Putin sees hope
of improving relations between the two governments. Of course, the
“strained relations” are entirely due to Washington, which has
demonized both Russia and Putin with false accusations and hostile
acts such as illegal sanctions. It was miscalculation for Washington
to expect Russia to give up its Black Sea naval base to Washington’s
coup in Ukraine.
What
can an agreement be based on? Bolton’s position has been opposed to
making any agreement with Russia or cooperating with Russia in any
way. From the neoconservative standpoint, Russia is in the way of US
world hegemony. As the neoconservative foreign policy doctrine
states, it is a principal US goal to prevent the rise of any country
that could serve as a check on American unilateralism. Russia is a
challenge to the American World Order because Russia stands in the
way of the American unipolar world.
A
successful summit will require Trump to reject this neoconservative
doctrine. If Trump can pull this off with Bolton sitting by him,
Trump’s critics will look very silly. Do Bolton and the Deep State
have a way of baking failure into the summit that will ensure the
continuation of Russia’s enemy status, thereby sustaining the
enormous budget and power of the US military/security complex? Is
Trump a superman who can overcome this powerful vested interest about
which President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961? How much
stronger is this complex more than half a century later after being
nourished by decades of Cold War and War on Terror?
Assad
and no doubt Iran are convinced that negotiations with Washington are
a waste of time. Assad has concluded that “the problem with US
presidents is that they are hostage to lobbyists. They can tell you
what you want to hear, but they do the opposite. That’s the
problem, and it’s getting worse and worse. Trump is a stark
example. That’s why when talking to the Americans, discussing
something with them does not settle anything. There will not be any
results. It’s a simple waste of time.”
Assad’s
view has the evidence on its side. One of Trump’s first actions was
to unilaterally pull out of the multi-nation Iran nuclear agreement.
There is no evidence that supports the hopeful Russian view.
It
would be an interesting exercise to list all the agreements
Washington has made over the course of US history and to calculate
the percentage that Washington kept. If Putin doesn’t want to be
taken for a ride, he should contemplate the words of Chief Joseph of
the Nez Perce summing up his negotiations with Washington: “I have
heard talk and talk, but nothing is done. I am tired of talk that
comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good
words and broken promises.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.