Russiagate Isn’t About Trump, And It Isn’t Even Ultimately About Russia



horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes recently asked a question of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn’t be permitted on most interstate highways: “Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?”

Disinformer Chris Hayes—normally seen as the more reliable and decent liberal in the MSNBC corral, he proves once again that liberals can never be trusted.

Hayes asked this fake question because he works for MSNBC and it is therefore his job, and he asked it in response to a report first made viral by deranged espionage LARPer Eric Garland that a Dutch intelligence agency had been observing Russian hackers attacking US political parties in advance of the 2016 election. Like all “bombshell” Russiagate reports, this one roared through social media like wildfire carried on the wings of liberal hysteria about the current administration, only to be exposed as being riddled with gaping plot holes as documented here by independent journalist Suzie Dawson. The report revolves around an allegedly Russian cyber threat now known in the west as “Cozy Bear”, which as Real News‘ Max Blumenthal notes is not a network of hackers but “a Russian-sounding name the for-profit firm Crowdstrike assigned to an APT to market its findings to gullible reporters desperate for Russiagate scoops.”

This “bombshell” overlapped with another as it was reported by the New York Times that at one point many months ago Trump had wanted to fire Robert Mueller, but then didn’t.

*Cough.*

Why does this keep happening? Why does the public keep getting sold a mountain of suspicion with zero substance? Over and over and over again these “bombshell” stories come out about Trump and Russia, Russia and Trump, only to be debunkedretracted, or erased from the spotlight after people start actually reading the allegations and thinking critically about them and see they’re not the shocking bombshells they purport to be? These allegations are all premised upon claims made the US intelligence community, which has an extensive and well-documented history of lying to advance its agendas, as well as porous claims made by an extremely shady and insanely profitable private cyber security company, and yet all we’re ever shown is smoke and mirrors with no actual fire.

Why is that?

You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet, there’s going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and its allies.

That would be a very different narrative with a very different effect, wouldn’t it? But that’s exactly what’s going on here, and if the US power establishment and its propaganda machine were in the business of telling people the truth, that’s precisely what they’d say.

It’s not a secret that China has been working to surpass the United States as the world’s leading superpower as quickly as possible. Hell, Xi Jinping flat-out said so during a three and a half hour address last October, and many experts think it might happen a lot sooner than Xi’s 30-year deadline. An editorial from China’s state press agency about the Davos World Economic Forum asserts that the time has come for the world to choose between the “Xi-style collaborative approach” and Trump’s “self-centred America First policy (which) has led his country away from multiple multilateral pacts and infused anxiety into both allies and the broader world”. China has been collaborating with Russia to end the hegemony of the US dollar, to shore up control of the Arctic as new resources become available, and just generally build up its own power and influence instead of working to remain in Washington’s good graces as most western nations have chosen to do.

Preventing this is the single most important goal of the US power establishment, not just its elected government but the unelected plutocrats, defense and intelligence agencies which control the nation’s affairs behind the scenes. This agenda is so important that in a letter to his successor the outgoing President Barrack Obama made the “indispensable” nature of American planetary leadership his sole concrete piece of advice, and pro-establishment influence firms like Project for a New American Century have made preventing the rise of a rival superpower their stated primary goal.

This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it’s about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump’s supporters think it’s a “deep state coup” to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China.

In an essay titled “Russia-China Tandem Changes the World”, US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia’s willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America’s self-appointed role as world leader.

“Russia is essential to China because of Moscow’s long experience managing global relations going back to the period of the Cold War and because of its willingness and ability today to stand up directly to the American hegemon,” writes Doctorow, “whereas China, with its heavy dependence on its vast exports to the U.S., cannot do so without endangering vital interests. Moreover, since the Western establishment sees China as the long-term challenge to its supremacy, it is best for Beijing to exercise its influence through another power, which today is Russia.”

So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that’s exactly what the US power establishment is attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment and the Trump-Russia “collusion” narrative, admitted last year that he’d like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they “isolate Russia from the rest of the world” after much badgering from Fox’s Tucker Carlson about his incendiary claims that the alleged cyberattacks constituted an “act of war”. It is worth noting here that despite Swalwell’s repeated hysterical claims about Trump and Russia, he recently voted to renew the treasonous Kremlin-colluding president’s godlike surveillance powers anyway.


Establishment muppets like Swalwell and the unelected elites who own them don’t care about Trump, they care about crippling China’s right arm Russia so that they can set about sabotaging the agendas of a potential rival superpower unimpeded by the skilful opposition of a nuclear superpower. But, getting back to the hypothetical situation I asked you to envision earlier, they can’t just come right out and say that.

They can’t. The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can’t just come right out and say “Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so we’re going to have to try and shut down Russia’s influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars and troops along Russia’s border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We’ll also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please.” A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives better.

Just as importantly, the rest of the world would recoil in revulsion.

So they lie. They use America’s deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that they are helping to resist Trump. They think they’re lying to you for your own good, because you can’t understand how important it is that they do what they’re trying to do. That’s why there are so many gaping plot holes and none of this ever quite adds up; they’re lying to you like a parent telling a child he needs to eat his broccoli if he doesn’t want a lump of coal for Christmas. Except instead of eating broccoli it’s consenting to dangerous escalations and military expansionism, and instead of a parent it’s a class of elitist sociopaths, and you’re always going to get coal.

And sure, an argument can be made that the world is better off under the watchful domination of the US power establishment than it would be with multipolar power arrangements, and I encounter many establishment loyalists who make precisely that argument. Personally I would argue that the death, destruction and mayhem caused by the intrinsically evil things the US establishment must do in order to maintain dominance completely invalidate that argument, but it’s a debate that people deserve to have, and they can’t have it when they’re being lied to about what’s really going on.

Insist on the truth. Keep pushing back against this pernicious psyop. Spread the word.

____________

Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, bookmarking my website, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalor buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

About the Author
 
Caitlin Johnstone
is a brave journalist, political junkie, relentless feminist, champion of the 99 percent. And a powerful counter-propaganda tactician. 

horiz-long grey

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

 

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report 


black-horizontal

Make sure many more people see this. It's literally a matter of life an death. Imperial lies kill! Share widely.
  •  
  • 54
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    54
    Shares

4 thoughts on “Russiagate Isn’t About Trump, And It Isn’t Even Ultimately About Russia

  1. Actually, i think it does have everything to do with Trump and Putin. The plan was to have Trump removed from office by now and Pence installed so we could be at war with Russia. That closed door meeting off the record between Trump & Putin was never, ever, under any circumstance, supposed to happen.

  2. There are still those who swear that Iraq has or had “stockpiles of wmd.” Propaganda 101: Any lie that is repeated often enough comes to be accepted as fact by the “masses.” Question for those who think that Russia somehow “stole the election” by hacking into voting machines, etc.: Why would Russia want Clinton to be president? If you check the 2016 election results, you’ll see that Clinton did get the most votes, in spite of much opposition by much of the Dem voting base. Trump is president because of that peculiarity of the US elections, the electoral college system.

    1. How is the popular vote of each state a “peculiarity”?

      If we suddnly started using a ‘nationwide popular vote’ to elect Presidents, THAT would be peculiar… And unconstitutional… And disenfranchising…

  3. Ms.
    Johnstone’s gotten herrself into a false dichotomy here, which started,
    by my reckoning, when she bought into this “Russia is China’s right
    arm” business. China and Russia have been civilizationally at odds for
    millennia. That’s not going to change overnight. Russia is busy shoring
    up Siberia against an onslaught of Chinese settlers. Russia goes
    toe-to-toe with China daily over influence in the former CIS countries,
    and elsewhere. Russia and China may strategically cooperate on some
    matters concerning the U.S., but it is a very tenuous cooperation, as
    the Russians have been burned and betrayed on this before, and are not
    keen to be seen as having been fooled twice.

    Remember
    it was Nixon who stretched out a tricky appendage to China, both to
    shore up domestic sentiment and to burn Russia. And he didn’t do it by
    having the State Department and other relevant branches of government
    complete scholarly evaluations and weigh in on possible ramifications.
    He sent in Kissinger, then his head of National Security (not his
    Secretary of State, Rodgers, who was kept in the dark about this) to
    accomplish through skullduggery what should have been a broadly
    considered matter of public policy.

    Henry Kissinger
    happily sold U.S. interests down the grand canal, and every other
    administration has followed suit (with some hemming and hawing).
    Clinton’s administration might have been the most egregious, with his
    allowing China to join the WTO without proper safeguards in place —
    essentially gutting the trade structure then in place — and certifying
    China as a place where working standards, environmental practices, and
    other aspects of human and labor rights were “essentially equivalent” to
    the U.S., under the ostensible premise that, as China’s market economy
    expanded, it would automatically become more democratic. That hasn’t
    happened, and China has grown more draconian with the surgical precision
    afforded by enhanced computerization and expanded technical
    sophistication.

    Clinton welcomed partnership between
    Walmart and the guys on the other side of the Great Wall. China gained
    unheard of access to U.S. markets, on par with Japan, along with
    exchange rates fixed to be as favorable. The theory justifying this
    might have been that Global Corporatist Financiers would emerge
    mega-profitable, while the stuff just somehow got made and American
    coped with the results. Whatever the rationale, Clinton’s campaign was
    caught with their hand in the Lippo Corporation cookie jar — the same
    Chinese firm that increased Senate House Leader McConnell’s wealth from
    one to eight million in the last seven years. Contrary to your assertion
    that America has tried to suppress China’s rise, they’ve done very much
    to enable it. In addition to rescinding, curtailing, or never
    initiating the myriad of trade inducements, market access, and
    technology transfers proffered; the U.S. could have objected to China
    building military installations throughout the South China sea, but
    chose instead to look the other way. Now, as a fait accompli there’s
    little they can do about it other than outright war.

    If
    the U.S. were genuinely concerned about curtailing China’s rabid
    territorial expansionism; restraining Beijing’s culturally genocidal
    policies toward Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Mongolians; protesting internet
    censorship; and a myriad of human rights, environmental, and other
    abuses, the U.S. would partner with Russia. On the contrary, the
    Russophobia campaign is, if anything, an indication that the Globalist
    Neoliberal elites who backed Mrs. Clinton see a strong role for China as
    partners in the exploitation and immiseration of the masses. They seem
    to believe they can reign in the CCP’s hancentrism and chauvinism.

    No,
    the reasons for Russia being targeted for estrangement could be
    considered convoluted in a way different way from the one you suggest.
    Partly, it’s domestic reasons. Partly, it’s convenient. Americans have
    been conditioned for several generations to fear and loathe Russia.
    Power struggles within the government, between government factions, have
    been won by playing the Russia card.

    Thinking that
    concern about Chinese totalitarianism is limited to a binary axis where
    U.S. planetary leadership is the only factor on the other side does a
    great disservice to the cultures, nations, and peoples in China’s path
    who are concerned that their fates will not mirror those of the
    Tibetans, Uyghurs and Mongols who got caught within China’s
    ever-expanding boundaries. Keeping Russia and America at loggerheads
    advances the Chinese cause; Russia is not China’s right arm and would
    blanch at the suggestion.

    There’s something deeply
    wrong with the way America is projecting foreign power throughout the
    world (albeit for a different set of reasons in disparate regions), and
    something deeply wrong about the way U.S. citizens are being manipulated
    domestically. There’s something deeply wrong about China’s foreign
    power projection and domestic manipulations as well. This combination of
    Wrong + Wrong does not add up as she suggests.
    ..

Leave a Reply to incumbent Cancel reply