Necessity of the “Russian threat”

07.06.2017

The book titled 'Putinophobia' by Italian journalist and politician Juliette Chiesa was published last year. 'Putinophobia' is actually Russophobia 2.0, as the author claims, while the Russophobia 1.0 was a historical constant and the main component of the Western policy toward Russia. It has lasted, from the Crimean war to the breakdown of the Soviet Union, if not even from the earlier period. Then comes a period of Yeltsin’s Russia, which was actually the only Russia “appropriate” for the West , and the only Russia the West would accept - weak, economically devasted, socially distraught with a great presence of alcoholism, apathic population and, of course, uncritical blindness toward the material wealth of the West and under the constant threat of secession of the local counties, republics and the other autonomous administrative units.

However, with the arrival of Vladimir Putin into power, the new-old Russophobia has been activated, with the old animosity in a new form, and with the same essence. 'Putinophobia' - a modern version of a centuries old russophobia combined with the identification of Russia with Putin and embodiment of the hate toward everything Russian by attacking him. If nothing else, then this reactivation of Russophobia, as the main component of the Western politics toward Russia, at least in the last century and a half, goes in favour of Putin - he must be doing  something good for his state, country and the people. The author of the book shows current examples of Russophobia, how it looks and makes shorter and longer reviews on the past and the core of Russophobia in the West, in the Russian surroundings, and, unfortunately, even within very Russians and inside of Russia itself.

The main thesis, already pointed out, is that Russophobia is the main component of the Western politics toward Russia in the the last century and a half at least; it was bigger of smaller, depending on the period, but always present with one key goal; to justify the Western politics toward Russia.

Because, if, by accident, it turns out that Russia doesn’t really want to conquer the world, violently, then all the Western screaming in that direction, and all of its hypocrisy, warmongering, threats, finger pointing, inculpation and accusing Russia for being guilty for something it didn’t and maybe even did do, don’t have even a thin basis and justification. That is why the consistency of the “Russian threat” is a crucial need of the West and that is why they are constantly “keeping it alive” - without it, they nor want neither may maintain. And, the key argument for this pathological appearance is Peter the Great's statement  on how Russia will rule Europe in future  - this statement is exhibited in the Museum of England as the main proof of Russian aggression. Stalin’s expansionism in the Eastern Europe also goes along as greatly contributing to bringing the Russophobia 1.0 to the point of schizophrenia and fanaticism and its easy reactivation today. 

Here I would like to make the main point. Indeed, the countries of the Eastern Europe and the former Eastern Bloc, have mixed both good and bad memories from the period after the end of WWII in Europe until the fall of communism. But, this is not an argument for the post-Cold war alignment of the leaderships of this states on the side of direct service to USA, EU and NATO. Also, one of the many hypocrisy of the West lays in the fact that from the “Russian occupation” of the Eastern Europe more than 26 years has passed. On the other side, US army, which, with other Allies, landed of the beaches of Normandy, has never  left Europe and it does not show any tendency of doing so in the near future. Futhermore, US army plans further expansionism. The only difference is that, once attracted under the threat of the “Soviet invasion”, under the US umbrella, Western European countries stayed there because of the “new Russian threat” and countries of the former Eastern Bloc joined them, almost all of them. And beside this, beside the arrival of NATO, not in the frontiers of the former Eastern Bloc, but in the current borders of Russia, it is Russians who are still the biggest “threat” and greatest aggressors, and, then this:

  1. “Russia has the potential to destroy other countries and therefore is a bigger existential threat than the groups such as Daesh…There are existential and non-existential threats. Russian activities are an existential threat because they can destroy other countries”, said the Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski.
  2. “Putin demonstrates commitment not to international values, but to the Orthodox ones. His support to Assad in Syria can be explained by the fact that Assad protects the Orthodox in Syria. Besides, Orthodoxy is more dangerous that the Islamic fundamentalism and therefore it is the biggest threat for the Western civilisation.” said Carl Bilt, Swedish Foreign Minister.
  3. Biden claimed on the World economic forum in Davos that Russia is the biggest threat to the world order. He accused Moscow for finding a way to weaken the European project, which brought decades of peace. “Under president Putin, Russia uses any available tools to get close to the European project, to use the omissions in the Western countries and to get back to the politics defined by the spheres of interest”, said Biden.

There are countless examples. I've chosen the three most striking ones, coming from different corners of the same side; one from the official of an ex-Cold war country in Eastern bloc, quickly europeanized and NATO-ized, one from an ex EU and UN official and current Foreign Minister of an EU member state and the last one from the one of the biggest exponent of the US deep state (which, admittedly, today does not have the authority in the USA, but that does not stop them to  interfere in the state affairs, like it was doing while Clinton, Bush and Obama were in power). And these 3 statements are united by – Russophobia. Without it, NATO, as a former pendant to the Warsaw pact, because the last ceased to exist, would also lose the meaning of existence. NATO “interventions” (aggressions) in The Republic of Srpska and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), again legitimized this military alliance , but not forever, not for long, because, that is what the “threat” of “Russian expansion” is here for. As stated before, every Russia, that is not enslaved, economically destroyed, spiritually weakened, internally fragmented and divided socially and territorially, is simply a threat to the West. It could all fit in a generally well-known statement by Madlen Allbright, who said that it would be: “…unfair for Russia to possesses such a huge space and so much natural wealth while other countries lack the same. In the areas of Siberia and the Russian Far East, there would be place for many others…” And that is the final goal of the West and the last phase of the Russophobia 1.0 and 2.0; subjugation of Russia. Luckily, Putin’s Russia is not Yeltsin’s Russia and the year is not 1991 but 2017.

USA is no logner  lonely on the world throne, but almost entirely degraded from former world power number 1 to the rank where it is accompanied by Russia, China, India, Brasil, Iran, Turkey… 

Question remains whether Russophobia in the future will explode and blow up the world, or it will be replaced by “Chinophobia” ( which is most likely ) or some other 'phobia'?