Shock Revelation: Putin wants stability in the USA

Remember the claims that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government had a role in inciting the mob that broke into the Capitol building in Washington DC back in January? I wrote about this in an article a few weeks ago. No sooner had the dust settled than social media was abuzz with statements that Putin either arranged the whole thing or at the very least was celebrating what had happened. As former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes put it, “This is the day that Vladimir Putin has waited for since he had to leave East Germany as a young KGB officer at the end of the Cold War.”

The idea that Putin and the Russian state want nothing more than to see Western democracies collapse into chaos is now so widespread as to be pretty much an uncontestable truth. Everybody knows that it is so. Russian “disinformation”, election “meddling”, and all of the rest of it, are put down to Putin’s enormous fear of democracy and of the West, and his concomitant desire to undermine both.

If you have any doubts, just Google “Putin, undermine democracy.” I did, and this is what I got:

As you can see, at the top of the list comes an article in The Atlantic from last year with the title “Putin’s Goal Is to Bring Down American Democracy,” after which we have a Science Direct article “Russia’s Attempt to Undermine Democracy in the West,” something from the Foreign Policy Research Institute entitled “Is Russia Undermining Democracy in the West? Conference” (I looked up the conference – the answer to the question was overwhelmingly “Yes), and then a Foreign Affairs article “How Russia and China Undermine Democracy” (note that there’s no question here that they do – the issue is just how). And on and on it goes.

You get the point. Putin wants to destroy Western democracy, and revels in destabilizing it at every opportunity. If you have any doubts about that, anti-disinformation campaigners point to the work of alleged Russian internet trolls and bots who, they say, latch on to divisions in Western societies and then exploit and accentuate them, in order to destabilize us from within.

I decided to put this to the Google test as well, searching for “Russia, exploit divisions America’. I got the following results:

The Atlantic again tops the rankings with an article entitled “Russia Is Still Exploiting America’s Divisions.” After that, we have the same Atlantic piece that appeared in the first search, then others with titles like “Russia exploits our divisions,” “How Russia used social media to divide Americans,” and “Russia seeks to exploit divisions in the West.”

So there we have it. Russia is out to get us. It wants domestic chaos in the West, and is doing all it can to create it.

But is this true?

Here’s the problem. No senior Russian official has ever said anything of the sort. Really. I challenge you to prove the opposite. Just find one quotation from Putin, foreign minister Lavrov, or anybody else at the top of the Kremlin pile, saying that this is what they want. I’m betting you won’t find it.

To the contrary, what you find when you study what Russians say is that the one thing they value above all else is stability. In fact, the word “stability” appears over 20 times in the 2016 Foreign Concept of the Russian Federation. And stability in foreign affairs, it is felt, depends on domestic stability. A country that is in internal turmoil is going to be incapable of pursuing a constructive foreign policy, and will likely try to deflect from its internal problems by assertiveness abroad. It’s better that other countries, even ones that are relatively hostile, are stable than that they are falling apart.

And so it is that in a meeting with businessmen on Wednesday, Vladimir Putin had the following to say:

We see what is happening, for example, overseas: of all those who walked into the US Congress building, 150 people were arrested and face anywhere from 15 to 25 years in prison. We have no way of knowing whether the internal contradictions will stop there. We really want them to stop, and I will tell you why. We are interested in steady relations with all our key partners, and internal squabbles, for internal political reasons, are in the way of achieving this kind of stability in the relations between our states.

What??

How does this square with the gospel truth we have been told to believe, that Putin rejoices at every sign of turmoil in our midst, and is doing all he can to provoke chaos amongst us?

It doesn’t square at all. Something must be wrong.

Indeed something is – everything we’re being told by The Atlantic and all the rest of them is total, complete, utter nonsense. It not only isn’t supported by the evidence, but is in fact rejected by it.

Will anybody notice? Sadly, I doubt it. The same old lies will keep on being repeated. They’ve been said so often by now that nobody can imagine that they’re not true. But at least you, dear readers, will know that they’re not. And perhaps if we can spread that truth a little bit further, then drip by drip we might have some effect. I’m not optimistic, but at least we can try.

34 thoughts on “Shock Revelation: Putin wants stability in the USA”

  1. Lets be honest this isn’t anything new for Russia watchers or Russophiles. Putin and Xi both desire stability, in Europe and with America, it is sadly the fact that the US DO NOT want stability, actually in reality they are incapable of it. If you look at the divide and conquer ‘strategy’of the US in the middle east, sow chaos reap oil/dividends, it is truly the policy that has come home to roost for them. In terms of the economy, with an interlinked globalised financial structure, stability is a must. Now what we have with the US (and UK in particular) are two countries both incapable of it, yet as establishment imperialist empires both trying to cling on to the status quo at home. Its the same old problem with the west which simply cannot be cured. An incapacity to understand Russia, it’s history, its mentality and its people added to a fundamental form of racism with the British and a quasi religious unwillingness amongst the Americans. I think they’re all insane, utterly mad, anyone with a couple of brain cells can see the way the wind is blowing yet this moronic ‘elite’ seem intent on ignoring it. Russia cannot be ‘contained’ any more than China can. Russian people can remember the 90s and today is somewhat of a hey day in comparison, in its 1000 year history Russia was never a democracy, yet it is more so today than it ever has been. What’s not to like, when they look into the abyss that the EU is becoming and the quite simple, chaotic collapse of the US? The 21st Century is the Eurasian century, nothing is going to change that, the imperialist dogs may bark but the caravan passes in the night.

    Like

      1. Crazy, I agree. One would assume those matters are secretly done anyway. Why going public now? Feeding/upholding the narrative? You would only if you weren’t a true believer? What would be your motives if you weren’t? It’s an attempt at faking transparency?

        Like

  2. “is now so widespread as to be pretty much an uncontestable truth.”

    I am just one of he great unwashed, enjoying my retirement and trying to think more than two steps ahead of what I will be writing about.

    I have followed the “Putin” story from about 2000 on, and have read a few of his speeches among them the Valdai club and the Munich speech prominently as well as some of his yearly addresses, and followed his yearly Q and A for several years now (all in translation of course).

    I always came a way with the impression all the man wanted for Russia was a stable trading environment which includes the EU and the USA, Russia being able to chart its own course within this environment and keep the world a stable place for human development and commerce.

    All his actions, when viewed through the lens of the Russian view -as far as I can view through that lens formed by his and Lavrov’s speeches – speak to that desire.
    The NATO lens however seems to be formed through a mindset of malice towards all who want to develop their countries differently than the prescription the neoliberal/neocon crowd of NATO nations have laid down as being the only ones acceptable, incapable of conceiving a multipolar world wit various power centres being able to work together.

    But then, maybe I am just an idiot who saw this stance from the beginning, when he floated the idea of joining NATO and was quite positive to develop closer ties to the EU and the US but was unable to discern sinister goals behind his plans which seems to be the prerogative of the |NATO conglomerate – projection of its own malice and ill will onto the behaviour of others..

    But then I was also an idiot who immediately saw that the Ukrainian putsch would quite quickly lead to Crimea joining Russia.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Peter, I think your perceptions are totally on the mark, with or without translation. Putin/Lavrov are a perfectly peaceable bourgeois pair who just want to quietly trade goods, fit in with the cool kids, and make money for Russia while preferably not getting involved in any conflicts.

      The other (NATO) side are being dishonest and malicious, that should be clear even to a tiny foetus.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Eh, our “western partners” got themselves entangled and don’t know how to get out of their own shit. See, all these “articles” are written by those who graduated from one of the top 10 universities in the world (check YouTube) and some of them might even get some great “recognition” as Nobel Peace Prize, Pulitzer Prize and numerous other pieces of rubbish that you cherish. And, while you prize each other and kiss each other’s ass believing in your exceptionalism, the rest of the world is moving. See, it is actually good that all “eyes” are on islands. Will be easy to make sure they don’t spill over and contaminate some future world. Till then, keep Googling

    Like

  4. At the risk of sounding like a nitpicker, may I suggest that ‘division’ and ‘instability’ are not the same thing. Switzerland, for example, is (or appears to be) extremely stable, while also, in a sense, extremely divided (Suisse Romande and people in eastern mountain cantons could hardly be more different, both culturally and politically).

    The root of instability in the US, imo, is that it has become a unitary state. If American federal government (including the president) had as much power as the Swiss one, no one would care about things happening in Washington DC. And then, with all divisions remaining, it could (arguably) become a stable and peaceful country.

    Like

    1. That’s an interesting argument, Mao. Most people assume that if the U.S. were to break up into separate entities, or weaken the power of the center, then it would erupt into regional civil wars. North against South, East against West, etc.
      And yet the same class and ethnic divisions run very deep within each area, regardless of geography. Also, the regional divisions have lessened with each generation, as people move around and become more homogenized. For example, people were shocked in the recent election when Texas almost (not quite) went for Biden. My Texas relatives explained it as, a lot of Liberals from California have migrated to Texas and almost turned it “blue”.
      So, in other words, my point being, that regional civil war probably would not happen. But on the other hand, race war and even genocide could be very likely in many locations, without the “stabilizing” influence of the federal govt. Let us, in Pushkin’s words, pray that we never have to see such a primal rebellion, cruel and merciless.

      Like

      1. For the regional homogenization, yes, you have a point there: it’s more urban vs rural than regional. So, federal vs state might not be enough, states would need to give more autonomy to counties (‘commune’, in Swiss terminology).

        As for the ‘race war’, sorry, I just don’t see it. I have the impression that the whole ‘race’ thing is nothing but manipulation, by the establishment.

        They have riots in D-controlled cities, cities controlled by single national-level party. They have frequent riots, so, plain and simple: this model doesn’t work. Let these cities deal with it locally, form local parties with more meaningful, granular platforms. Let them disband the police and organize volunteer neighborhood militias, or whatever local conditions might demand. If there is a problem in Minneapolis, surely it needs to be solved in Minneapolis, not in DC.

        If you watched The Wire, there a storyline there where the police chief organizes an open drug market in a designated area, making the rest of the city nice and peaceful. But of course he can’t legally do it, and as soon as the bosses find out, it’s all back to normal, the city turns into hell on earth again. This sort of things.

        Like

    2. “And then, with all divisions remaining, it could (arguably) become a stable and peaceful country.”

      […]

      Ho-hum.

      Why (both of) you dismiss so casually the possibility of outright local oligarchization (or, to give it a proper All ‘Murikin name – “Heuylongization”) given an opportunity to pretty much get rid of the “Fed” and engage in superlocalism? Because that’s how you get Russia in the “Holy 90s” ™ or the current age Ukraine.

      “A stable and peaceful country”. Yeah, sure. Totally.

      […]

      OTOH, this surely would degrade the US of A ability to do shit globally, so, I’m sure, “the people of good-will” worldwide ought to support this kind of development no matter the results 😉

      Like

      1. Yeah, nothing’s perfect. It’s just that I was impressed by what I saw in Switzerland, especially considering the variety of languages, confessions, and political cultures there. And then I thought that perhaps what Madison, Jefferson and other famous WHITE SUPREMACISTS tried to design for the former British colonies in N.America was something similar. It does sound similar, from what I’ve read. It started as confederation, and then part of it tried to become confederation again, in 1961.

        Like

      2. “And then I thought that perhaps what Madison, Jefferson and other famous WHITE SUPREMACISTS tried to design for the former British colonies in N.America was something similar.”

        That would be fortuitous… for some. This process of the US of A coming into being was also semi (okay, maaaaaybe ¼) relevant to then Russian Empire.

        It’s now mostly forgotten by all parties involved, by the Britain had been quite chummy to Russia during the early reign of Catherine II. So chummy in fact, that they provided invaluable logistic assistance (both themselves and by pressuring allies) during the Russo-Turkish war of 1769-1774. Not out of suddenly developed decency and sentimentalism, mind you – for them it was a proxy war against France, which, traditionally, supported the Ottomans.

        Now, with Britain being dye-in-the-wool thalassocracy, it’s been always in need of the “continental soldier” ™ doing all the bleeding. So, when the colonial separatists* kicked off their treasonous rebellion (ungrateful for all the good the Crown did to them, wretches!), and after the British senior officers in the North American ATO have won themselves the martial laurels befitting general Pavel Grachyov, there arose a need for the fresh cannon fodder for the Empire. The Brits decided to “cash in” a debt which, according to them, Russia “owed” them.

        So, in late 1770s – early 1780s (till 1780 for sure) they began pestering Catherine II to provide them with up to 50 000 soldiers to be sent fight (mostly – die) in America. Their arguments were impeccable and befitting even their modern, much more progressive descendants. Because, they reasoned, Russia is a despoty, it would be easy for Catherine to simply order her “slaves” to do her bidding, no matter what kind of it. We, OTOH, are civilized Europeans. Ordering us around like that is inadmissible.

        Catherine had been taken aback at such cheery frankness, but instead of refusing outright, began hewing and hawing, playing for time and, generally, not wanting to offend “kinda” friendly regime. Foreign Office responded with the time-tested (and still used by and large to this very day) method – it ordered the ambassador to bribe Potemkin. The ambassador reported that, sadly, there is no amount of money in existence, that could be possibly offered to Potemkin in order to buy him.

        When the British ATO (and, more importantly, war against France and Spain) turned sour, Catherine began urging her international partners from the Misty Albion to just “Let It Go”(c). She wrote to George III (not sure if she was aware of his then… “status”): “Sign a peace with the rebelling colonies at all cost and then try to keep them disunited”. It seems, that Catherine even back then was one of the few monarchs who truly understood the nature of the nascent North American United States – a “union” of the “states” aka “countries”.

        But then, decades after, the American Civil War gave birth if not to the “united” nation, but, at leas, to the Fed, which put kibosh on local separatism and the like. Because “This Is Different, You Have to Understand” (c)

        __________
        *) Instigated by Dmytro Yarosh-like figure whose so-called “Sons of Liberty” could have passed for the human rights activists from the “Right Sector” if not the “C14” 😉

        Like

  5. Conspirationists would never believe your argument, Paul. They would say that Putin is so damned smart that he says one thing and does another.

    And it seems that a lot of media are conspirationist nowadays. If it isn’t the Jews or the Muslims it must be the Russians. The only thing they can’t admit is that it may be themselves and the elite groups they are part of.

    Like

  6. “I don’t believe these elite groups are scheming. I believe they are completely clueless.”

    Maybe the one that is clueless – or not well informed – is you?

    https://www.e-ir.info/2020/02/01/new-american-century-1997-2006-and-the-post-cold-war-neoconservative-moment/

    The author argues that neo conservatism has lost some of its influence, I however think that the Democrats under Clinton, Obama and Biden fully bought into the ideas.

    Like

    1. Agree that elite groups scheme like crazy! Back in the days of the British Empire, the elites would gather in some swanky men’s club like Wodehouse’s “Drones” and plot their colonialist schemes.

      Nowadays American drones gather in their own clubs and plot similar nefarious schemes. It’s actually easy to put the “masters of the universe” all together in one room: According to latest statistics, something like 400 families own 98% of American wealth. If each family designated one representative to the latest “plot and scheme” conspiracy meeting, that’s just 400 people, you could fit them in a school auditorium.

      So they could easily plot something nasty and then blame it on Russia!

      Like

  7. Anyone who still believes there are actual diferences between the Democratic party and the Republican party is caught in some illusion.

    They both represent the actual oligarchy and vary in degrees of viciousness how to establish a “new” rentier capitalism reminiscent of the feudal system of wealth creation not by production but by extracting rent from land, and now added ownership of intellectual resources, material resources etc. and wealth itself through the financial mechanisms that have bee created.

    The guy writing this article is the typical liberal who denies that the economic conditions form the basis of all human interactions and examines mainly the secondary phenomena that are a product of the changing form of capitalism in the USA – away from an actual production of “things”.

    Both parties are beholden to the owners of wealth in the USA through the system of party financing, who of course have no interest to ever permit the emergence of a united front against their actual power they wield.
    ttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

    Like

    1. Right. The ever-accelerating “oligarchization” of American capitalism is fueled by the unhinged injection of money into politics. One milestone was the ludicrous “corporations are people” thing, and then a series of legal rulings not only that “corporations are people” but also that “money equals speech”. I am not making any of this up, however ludicrous it sounds.

      Of course, if “money equals speech”, that means that some animals have more speech than others, it goes without saying. Even just recently there were some new rulings coming out of Congress, wherein ever MORE money is permitted/encouraged, the ante was raise up from the permittable hundreds of thousands into the millions. So, your Aunt Millie will donate $5 to her favorite candidate for Congress; while Scrooge McDuck pours in $25 million to his guy.

      The Congressman will of course take Aunt Millie’s opinion just as seriously as McDuck’s when it comes to voting for the next “Health Insurance for Everyone” bill.

      Most ordinary Americans never even question why every single member of Congress and Senate happens to be a multi-millionaire. They didn’t all start out that way, either!

      Like

  8. I like to link o this article, the author explains something about the utter cluelessness of the USA foreign service and intelligence agencies.
    Reading that I am quite incredulous that a country like the USA can have such a childish visions of other Nations, it very well explains the disasters the USA got into especially after WW2.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/03/14/the-great-american-delusion-just-that-one-guy/
    “In my career I used to participate in regular meetings with an American intelligence agency. I – we – were always fascinated by their obsession with individuals……
    The simple-minded and ignorant obsession with personalities leads nowhere…..
    I have written enough about the crazy American obsession with Putin: five years ago I wrote A Brief Compendium of Nonsense About Putin. Since then he has grown in monstrosity: election rigger, computer hacker, serial poisoner, “Russia under Putin poses an existential threat to the United States and other countries of the West, Russia’s neighbors, and his own people” is a typical effusion. Note the personalism: the “existential threat” is “Russia under Putin”, not “Russia”. If only Putin could be got rid of…”

    Like

    1. This article seems to somewhat bolster Jan Wiklund’s argument about the cluelessness.

      However – this cluelessness does not make difference to the ruling financial and what is left of the industrial oligarchs, as long as they still can foresee that the mayhem caused by this incompetence and the bloodletting it results in for the targeted nations still furthers their financial and political power.

      This class is utterly psychopathic and ruthless,, but still garners the approval of the USA populace – and not theirs alone – as it is part of the indoctrination of the social Darwinism that underpins the social relations in any capitalist country.

      Like

    2. The silly personalization of The Enemy finds a resonance in the American national character, which was raised on comic book super-heroes and super-villains. And is also fundamentally lazy and doesn’t like to challenge its own primitive “thinking” style.

      Plus, it only takes a couple of brain cells to click to “who is the new bad guy”, it’s so much easier than actually reading books and studying history and politics.

      Like

  9. Why don’t you publish an article in The Nation, Paul? They’ll probably accept it, and a lot more people will read it. The Intercept, Grayzone and others like them, though not exactly mainstream, still reach a wide audience.

    Like

    1. The Nation once commissioned me to write a review of a book about Russiagate, Trump-Putin collusion, and all that stuff. But for some reason, it was never published. Was it because I expressed the wrong opinions? Or was it for some other reason? I was paid for my efforts, but never told why the piece wasn’t published. It’s made me a bit cautious about having any future dealings, though if they approached me I would be willing to give it a second shot, I suppose.

      Like

      1. Interesting. Thanking Lola for the question and our host Paul for the response.

        I admittedly struggled a little with Jeffrey Goldberg, lovingly Goldie for me, thus The Atlantic on my mind is connected among other things with his article: “Point of no Return” and his later accolade “The Obama Doctrine”: But he caught my attention before he was hired by the Atlantic.

        Like

      2. Interesting, and thanks for letting us know! Does The Nation now “own” your review? If so, it’s got to be pretty frustrating… I gave them money a couple of times, doubtful I’d ever do it again!

        Still, there are other good outlets. ConsortiumNews, founded by Robert Perry, is one I forgot to mention. It’s important to increase your readership beyond the “Russia circle” – it’s the only way, really, to spread the truth.

        Like

      3. Sorry, I accidentally misspelled Robert Parry’s name when talking about ConsortiumNews. He’s the guy who got Pulitzer in 1985 for his investigative reporting of Iran-Contra affair.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s