New Kontinent

01/07/2020

Happy U.S. Independence Day Wishes from Russia

For many open-minded Americans and Russians it has become a tradition to congratulate each other on their independence days, which are June 12 for Russia and July 4 for America.

This year we decided to note some Russian artistic works, which in the current political atmosphere might speak better than words when sending best wishes to America.
We are talking about sculptures of famous Americans located in Moscow and produced by well known Russian artist Alexander Burganov. As a side note, his sculpture of Russia’s most famous poet Alexander Pushkin is located on the campus of George Washington University, at the corner of 22nd and H streets, NW.

On the front lawn of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, one can see Burganov’s statue of American president John Quincy Adams, who also had served as the first U.S. Ambassador to Russia following the opening of diplomatic relations between the two countries in 1807.

Another spectacular Burganov statue features President Abraham Lincoln and Russian Tsar Alexander II. Although the two men never met, and came from vastly different backgrounds, there are powerful similarities. In 1861 Alexander signed a manifesto that abolished serfdom in Russia, while Lincoln issued in 1862 and signed in 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation liberating slaves in America.

During the American Civil War, Russia was the only European power that supported the cause of the Union. In 1863 two Russian Navy squadrons sailed to America, which in many ways turned the tide of the war in Lincoln’s favor while sending a strong warning to the other European empires, especially France and Great Britain, who were entertaining the idea of open support for the Southern rebels. When the Russian fleet arrived in New York and several months later in San Francisco, Lincoln and all the officials in Washington said, “Thank God for the Russians.”
Burganov is also the author of the Ronald Reagan/Mikhail Gorbachev statue. These two leaders made history by ending the Cold War that threatened nuclear annihilation of both nations and the world.

There is also one of the great American poet Walt Whitman prominently displayed on the campus of Moscow State University. In addition, the “Meeting on the Elbe” sculptural composition is dedicated to the April 25, 1945 linkage of U.S. and Soviet military, which became a symbol of the allied victory in WWII.

Some of these sculptures are installed in the beautiful downtown Arbat square, which became the place for ceremonies attended by the locals, tourists, and officials from many countries who have frequented the spot to lay the flowers and make speeches. There is also a birch tree with the plaque dedicating it to the friendship between the Russian and American peoples. Some living in the neighborhood have already started calling it, albeit unofficially, the “American Square.”

Actually, there is an unofficial “Russian Square” in Washington, DC on the territory of Guy Mason recreation center in the city’s Glover Park. It is lined with many trees, each of which is marked with a small plaque dedicated to a famous Russian poet or composer.

According to Alexander Burganov his sculptures symbolize how many good things our countries can do together instead of starting a new Cold War or, as Senator Sam Nunn has said, to “sleepwalk into nuclear catastrophe.”

30/06/2020

AFGHAN TALES

By Paul Robinson

I've said before, and no doubt will say again, that depictions of Russia often have little to do with Russia itself and are more about those doing the depiction. For many in the Western world, Russia is, and long has been, a significant 'other', comparison with which serves a useful purpose in the creation of self-identity. Beyond that, negative (and on occasion even positive) portrayals of Russia feed into domestic political struggles and help legitimize one side or other in whatever argument people are having. Whether these portrayals of Russia are accurate is neither here nor there. What matters is their impact on domestic politics.

Of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule, but historians who have looked at how Westerners have viewed Russia over the course of time have amassed enough evidence to show that it's often the case. If you doubt it, then you have merely to look at what has happened in the United States in the past four years, during which time Russia has been elevated into enemy number one, an allegedly existential threat which is on the cusp of destroying American democracy and plunging the country into civil strife. The point of the Russiagate hysteria has never been Russia itself. Rather it has been to delegitimize the election of Donald Trump as American president by portraying him as, in effect, a traitor, who has sold out his country to a foreign enemy. This narrative, of course, presupposes a foreign enemy, for which purpose one has had to be created, and Russia has proven a convenient candidate for the role.

It is this, I think, which explains the latest Russia scandal to strike the United States - the claim this week in the New York Times that Russian military intelligence has been paying the Taleban in Afghanistan to kill Americans. I am, of course, not in a position to testify as to the accuracy of the complaint, but like others am deeply sceptical of anything that is based solely on the testimony of anonymous intelligence officials and that lacks any supporting evidence. Unsurprisingly, the New York Times's story has led to much derision, being interpreted as a sign once again of the deeply Russophobic nature of the American press. I think, though, that that interpretation may miss the point, which is that the story, like so many others, is not really about Russia but rather yet another effort to discredit Donald Trump as a puppet in the control of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

This is because a key aspect of the story was an allegation that Trump had been briefed about Russia's nefarious activity but had done nothing in response. As might be expected, Trump's enemies in the media were quick to exploit the story to attack the president. For instance, MSNBC's prime Russiagate cheerleader Rachel Maddow had this to say:

"Not only does the president know ... there was that unexpected and friendly conversation he had with Putin. ... President Trump got off that call with Putin and immediately began calling for Russia to be allowed back into the G7. ... That's how Trump is standing up for Americans being killed for rubles paid by Putin's government."

Maddow's colleague, MSNBC morning news host Joe Scarborough, followed suit. 'Donald Trump has known about Putin killing Americans for months and has refused even to condemn Russia diplomatically. What Republican senator will speak out against this shocking dereliction of duty?' he tweeted. Other journalists were equally outright in their condemnation. 'While Trump was cozying up to Putin, Russia was paying the Taleban to kill American troops in Afghanistan,' said GQ's Laura Bassett on Twitter; and so on.

Whether any of this was true was something that none of these journalists bothered to ask. They simply assumed that it was, for the obvious reason that always assuming the worst about Russia suits their political agenda. Most notably, Trump's electoral rival, Joe Biden, said this about the president:

"Not only has he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for this egregious violation of international law, Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. ... His entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale. It's a betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation, to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm's way."

The problem with all this is that, as with so much of Russiagate, it appears to be entirely false. The White House immediately denied any knowledge of the Afghanistan story, and the Director of National Intelligence backed up Trump by confirming that, indeed, the president had never been informed about the alleged Russian activity. As so often, The New York Times appears to have been peddling 'fake news'. None of this, however, has stopped Trump's opponents from seizing on the story as further evidence of the president's treachery.

The question in my mind is what will happen should Trump lose the presidential election in November, an outcome that now seems likely. It strikes me that there are two possibilities. The first is that the Democratic Party and its supporters will lose interest in stories of alleged Russian malevolence, as they will no longer be needed. A Biden victory in November could, therefore, lead to a lessening in the current rhetorical tension. The second possibility is that nothing will change. Democrats, I fear, have come to believe the nonsense that they have been peddling, to the extent that it's become part and parcel of who they are. They are therefore incapable of altering course, and will govern on the basis of the prejudices they have generated in themselves over the past few years. I would like to think that the first possibility will come to pass, but I have to say that I'm not too optimistic. As for what will happen in the event that Trump is re-elected, I dread to think. But at that point, America might well be engulfed in flames, and Russia will be the least of anybody's problems.

30/06/2020

Fake story on Russians paying Afghans 'bounty' to kill Americans latest example of appalling US/UK media coverage of Russia

By Bryan MacDonald

The Anglo-American press is difficult to understand. Anonymous sources are treated as gospel - when they suit the ideological and political biases of news outlets - and spy agencies seem to be beyond reproach.

This, of course, is how America and Britain were drawn into the Iraq War. Mainstream media was complicit in manufacturing consent by publishing stories handed down by intelligence agencies - a great many of them later proven untrue. Perhaps most notably, the New York Times went big on the bogus "weapons of mass destruction" yarn.

After the damage was done, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had died, the paper apologized. It admitted it was encouraged to report the claims by "United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq."

Almost two decades on, it has plainly learned nothing. This weekend the Times had three of its most senior journalists basically rewrite a CIA press release as part of its latest attempt to undermine President Donald Trump by playing the "Russia card." Quite why it took so many of them is hard to understand - unless none wanted to be the sole name on the piece, preferring safety in numbers.

The story claimed that Russia is paying Afghan militants to kill American soldiers and that Trump's team has known for months but done nothing. The US director of national intelligence quickly denied the allegations, as did the president himself. It surely wasn't coincidental that the drop took place in the same weekend that reports emerged of Trump planning to withdraw 4,000 troops from Afghanistan.

If you know anything about Russia, the story is obviously false. The Americans are totally bogged down in Kabul, which suits Moscow in myriad ways. In fact, the Kremlin would be only delighted if the US stayed there forever. What's more, the Taliban hardly needs a financial incentive to attack a hated occupying force. So why would Moscow need to be handing out bounties to encourage people who already have it in for Americans?

Another interesting detail was the New York Times' assertion that its allegations are "based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals." Given we know the US uses torture in Afghanistan that should be an immediate red-flag to any self-respecting journalist. Not to mention the fact that even if Afghan prisoners did say this, it's likely no more than prison gossip: "Daud told Nadir that Hashem heard the Russians will pay you for killing an American."

The Times trio even threw in a bit of casual xenophobia. "I think we had forgotten how organically ruthless the Russians could be," they quoted Peter Zwack, a retired military intelligence officer, as saying. Imagine a report saying Asians, Africans, Mexicans or Jews are "organically ruthless." That's right, you can't, because it wouldn't happen. But Russians, being predominantly white and Christian, are considered to be fair game.

Soon after, the Washington Post said it had 'confirmed' the Times' story. All this means is they were fed the same bulls**t by the same anonymous spooks. Even more hilariously, the paper managed to get a named Taliban spokesman to go on the record with his denial, while it allowed the Americans who pushed the yarn to remain in the shadows. Nevertheless, which narrative do you think was given more credence?

This carry-on is deeply unethical. Especially given it comes just a couple of months after US/UK media went big on another fake story alleging Russia was trying to poison Czech politicians with ricin. Prague eventually admitted the tale was entirely made up. This confession, of course, received about one percent of the coverage granted to the original fabrication.

Predictably, broadcast media followed up on the Times and Post's reports. Rachel Maddow was front and center, naturally. She spent a few years airing false and hysterical smears about Trump's alleged ties to Moscow and suffered no professional consequences when the Mueller Report proved her allegations to be untrue.

But it wasn't just Maddow. On Saturday, CNN ran "breaking news" saying it had found "a European intelligence official" to corroborate this tale. It then cut to its own correspondent, one Nick Paton Walsh. He provided no named source and his comments basically amounted to "Some fella told me down the pub" stuff. Honestly, in any sane media culture, Paton Walsh would be laughed at, not encouraged.

For example, at one point he said "it's not clear when this happened" and then added, "it's clear it has caused casualties." But instead of asking "how is it possible to know that if you can't say when it happened?" the anchor just sat there nodding along with a vacuous look in her eyes. Indeed, such a disposition seems to be mandatory for CNN hosts, both male and female.

Later, Britain's Sky Newsran the same yarn, but said "British security officials have confirmed... that the reports about the plot are true." Presumably, Sky was spoon-fed by the same spooks who exploited Paton Walsh as a 'useful idiot'. Later, the Guardian's Stephanie Kirchgaessner tweeted "this confirmation by closest intel(igence) allies is critical and damning: Russia paid Taliban fighters to attack British troops in Afghanistan."

Again, the reporter expressed no doubts, because apparently the word of spooks is golden, and they would never lie. Incidentally, the Guardian also fell hook, line, and sinker for the Iraq WMD falsehoods and also hasn't learned its lesson. Or perhaps doesn't want to, or can't.

It's established that mainstream US/UK media operates in a self-contained pit of rumor, fear, braggadocio, bu****it, and propaganda when it comes to Russia. But what's most bizarre is the sheer transparency in how the outlets circulate the same false stories and then use each other as corroborating sources even though they are all getting the information from the same people.

Folk who obviously have their own agendas, and are playing gormless hacks like a fiddle. The other incredible thing is a clear lack of understanding about what 'confirmation' even means. It obviously requires tangible evidence, which is on the record.

The New York Times' coverage of Russia basically only has two tricks. They either rip-off articles from smaller Russian liberal outlets (who often can't complain too loudly as they rely on Western funding) or they regurgitate anonymous sources in the US military-intelligence establishment to run scare stories about Russia. None of this involves any reporting, and it cannot be considered journalism under any accepted definition of what the trade involves. (EMBED)

Given the New York Times is arguably the biggest, and most visible, fish in the US/UK media world, you can only imagine the even lower standards that permeate further down the food chain.

25/06/2020

25/06/2020