Russia – US National Security Interest Double Standards and Aggression Claims
With special guest and author Dr David Gibbs, Professor of History at the University of Arizona. When it comes to US foreign policy concerns about Ukraine and Russian foreign policy all we get is our US government perspective which has a long and documented history of lying and/or misleading the US public into conflict after conflict and war after war. Tonight, our guest leads us through a critical review of US/NATO relations with Russia from a more objective perspective that is sensitive to both Russian and western Europe national security interests.
Instead of descriptions of what we think of Putin and his motivations we start the show off by citing what he has said, and members of his government have said during recent speeches and press conferences that speak to the issue of the Ukraine – Donbass conflict. Russian national security red lines are accordingly revealed such as the red line that NATO would cross if its military infrastructure expanded in Ukraine.
Our guest provides a comprehensive historical context that includes many insights not shared by our mainstream media coverage of this conflict. He also presents and asks us to consider national security and human rights related examples of what arguably are ‘double standards.’ For instance, what would we do, as a matter of declaring red lines, if our geographical boundaries were peppered with Russian military exercises or nuclear or highly offensive Russian missile site locations at close proximity to our border? Or compared to Boris Yeltsin, who we uncritically supported and put into power, what is Putin’s human rights record? The double standard is simply if the US does it is OK if Russia or other countries do it, it is not ‘OK.’
All of this suggesting do we demonize and justify our profound dislike of Putin because he is not doing what we want him to do at the foreign policy level rather than the motivation we state, which is because of ‘political suppression and human rights violations’ that consistently lack evidence of their veracity? Instead, if the greatest human rights violation is to be subject to nuclear war, arguably is our foreign policies leading us down that path? How do we stop it?
US NATO history and promises in the early 1990s made to Russia not to expand eastward into the former communist states of eastern Europe are delineated and detailed by our guest. He argues that US foreign policy has weaponized human rights through the concept of ‘humanitarian interventions,’ and he explains who has the evidence-based history of meddling in the other’s elections? Don’t be Late!