Russia Says No to One-World Government

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Promi­nent Amer­i­can con­ser­v­a­tive thinker and author William Lind explains why the West is gang­ing up on Russia

Vic­tor Ole­vich: Almost a quar­ter cen­tu­ry has passed since the end of the Cold War. Yet, both Rus­sia and the West once again find them­selves at the precipice of a new Cold War. Why did Wash­ing­ton choose to pur­sue an aggres­sive for­eign pol­i­cy towards Moscow after the Sovi­et Union dis­solved in 1991? Could these devel­op­ments have been prevented?

William Lind: The Wash­ing­ton estab­lish­ment, which is bipar­ti­san, thought that now we could rule the world. It could dic­tate to every­one and it could force its ide­ol­o­gy, which is some­times called glob­al­ism or lib­er­al democ­ra­cy, but is in fact the soft total­i­tar­i­an­ism of Brave New World, on every­one in the world. If nec­es­sary, with mil­i­tary force. This is the clas­sic hubris that has destroyed one great pow­er after anoth­er. There is noth­ing new about it. 

Vic­tor Ole­vich:  Why has Wash­ing­ton cho­sen Ukraine as a bat­tle­ground in its new Cold War against Russia?

William Lind: Rus­sia under Pres­i­dent Putin rep­re­sents the state sys­tem and the way states nor­mal­ly act with­in the state sys­tem, based on their inter­ests. The ide­ol­o­gy of the Wash­ing­ton estab­lish­ment says that is not how the world is going to work any­more.  It is instead going to be essen­tial­ly a one world gov­ern­ment based in Wash­ing­ton. This ide­ol­o­gy includes such con­cepts as the fem­i­nist def­i­n­i­tion of women’s rights, deval­u­a­tion of all reli­gions, so called gay rights, and the belief that this must be uni­ver­sal.  Rus­sia is say­ing no to this.  It is say­ing that it still believes in the state sys­tem and is going to pur­sue its own inter­ests on the world stage.  So when Rus­sia assert­ed its inter­ests in the face of Ukraine threat­en­ing to join NATO, then Wash­ing­ton react­ed very strongly.

Vic­tor Ole­vich: The White House and the State Depart­ment fre­quent­ly crit­i­cize Rus­sia and oth­er nations around the world for under­min­ing demo­c­ra­t­ic norms. Yet, Wash­ing­ton did not think twice about foment­ing the over­throw of a demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly elect­ed pres­i­dent of Ukraine Vik­tor Yanukovich and sup­port­ing a gov­ern­ment that came to pow­er in Kiev as a result of a coup. How do you explain these dou­ble stan­dards? What do they say about val­ues inher­ent in US for­eign pol­i­cy today?

William Lind: The Wash­ing­ton estab­lish­ment defines democ­ra­cy as a sys­tem of elec­tions that elects the peo­ple it wants to be elect­ed.  If an elec­tion in anoth­er part of the world does not put in pow­er the gov­ern­ment that Wash­ing­ton wants, then Wash­ing­ton refus­es to rec­og­nize the elec­tion. We saw this most dra­mat­i­cal­ly in the Gaza Strip, where the freest and fairest elec­tion ever held in the Arab world result­ed in a Hamas gov­ern­ment com­ing to pow­er. And Wash­ing­ton imme­di­ate­ly announced that it would not rec­og­nize it or deal with it.

Vic­tor Ole­vich: What is the role of neo­con­ser­v­a­tives in spark­ing the cur­rent con­fronta­tion with Russia?

William Lind: The neo­con­ser­v­a­tives have nev­er got­ten over the Cold War and in truth they rep­re­sent the think­ing that was anti-Russ­ian long before the Sovi­et Union, that was anti-Russ­ian in the 19th cen­tu­ry. Unfor­tu­nate­ly for Amer­i­ca and the rest of the world, they have had an enor­mous impact on Amer­i­can for­eign pol­i­cy. There is no rea­son they should have that influ­ence, since all of their adven­tures have proven dis­as­trous. Of course, they gave us a com­plete­ly unnec­es­sary and failed war in Iraq. Nonethe­less, peo­ple con­tin­ue to lis­ten to them. This may have some­thing to do with the fact that they have a great deal of mon­ey behind them.

The neo­cons and the neolib­er­als are very sim­i­lar and work togeth­er. The Wash­ing­ton estab­lish­ment is bipar­ti­san. You have ele­ments on both the left and the right who dis­sent from it, par­tic­u­lar­ly sen­a­tor Rand Paul, but the two rep­re­sent pret­ty much a con­sen­sus with­in the estab­lish­ment, though they pre­tend to be opposed to one anoth­er, but they real­ly are not. Hillary Clin­ton, for exam­ple, is a neolib­er­al. As pres­i­dent her poli­cies would hard­ly be dif­fer­ent from that of the neocons.

Vic­tor Ole­vich: Russ­ian for­eign min­is­ter Sergei Lavrov recent­ly stat­ed that the goal of the sanc­tions imposed by the US and the EU against Rus­sia is regime change in Moscow. Can Washington’s cam­paign against Putin backfire?

William Lind: Yes, of course. The Unit­ed States and the EU are being hurt by the sanc­tions also. Rus­sia has very strong for­eign cur­ren­cy reserves, and it owes about 800 bil­lion dol­lars to West­ern banks, with much of that start­ing to come due. Now, because of the sanc­tions, Rus­sia is not going to be able to roll that over by bor­row­ing more in the West. Obvi­ous­ly, what Rus­sia can do in that case is say that it is sus­pend­ing pay­ment on all loans due to insti­tu­tions in coun­tries that are par­tic­i­pat­ing in the sanc­tions until the sanc­tions are lift­ed. Sud­den­ly, the sanc­tions will hurt Europe much more than they hurt Rus­sia, because Europe will have anoth­er mas­sive bank­ing cri­sis on its hands. There was a news flash last week about Rus­sia and Chi­na buy­ing a great deal of gold.  This points to anoth­er way the sanc­tions can back­fire. The rest of the world, and not just Rus­sia, is get­ting tired of the Unit­ed States try­ing to dic­tate to insti­tu­tions, par­tic­u­lar­ly banks, in their own coun­tries, on what they will do, as if they were Amer­i­can insti­tu­tions in com­plete dis­re­gard for their nation­al sov­er­eign­ty. One way to destroy this entire sanc­tions tool, not just in the case of Rus­sia but also in regards to oth­er coun­tries, is to move trade to a gold basis instead of a dol­lar basis. The the role of Amer­i­can banks will become irrel­e­vant, because trade will be com­plet­ed in gold.

Vic­tor Ole­vich: Is Europe able to act on its own, inde­pen­dent­ly of U.S. for­eign pol­i­cy goals?

William Lind: No, Europe at this point is still very much in Washington’s orbit.  It would not be an exag­ger­a­tion to say that the EU is an Amer­i­can satel­lite. Europe is too afraid of Amer­i­can wrath to take any Russ­ian offers. It is rather a mat­ter of tak­ing log­i­cal steps dic­tat­ed by the sit­u­a­tion. The debt prob­lem I talked about before will cer­tain­ly get Europe’s atten­tion and bring home to them that an anti-Russ­ian pol­i­cy could have much greater con­se­quences for them than its like­ly to have for Wash­ing­ton. In this sense, Europe’s inter­ests and America’s inter­ests are divergent.

Vic­tor Ole­vich: Rus­sia has warned about the dan­gers of top­pling Syr­i­an Pres­i­dent Bashar al-Assad since the begin­ning of Washington’s cam­paign against his gov­ern­ment.  Has Putin been proven right by the lat­est events sur­round­ing ISIS?

William Lind: Yes, absolute­ly, he has been proven right.  The Unit­ed States pol­i­cy in the Mid­dle East is so stu­pid that there is a very real dan­ger that we may find our­selves simul­ta­ne­ous­ly fight­ing all three par­ties – the Islamist rebels in Syr­ia, the Assad gov­ern­ment and Iran. It takes real tal­ent in for­eign pol­i­cy to fight every­body at the same time, despite the fact that they are all fight­ing each oth­er. The only chance for sta­bil­i­ty in Syr­ia and for the preser­va­tion of the state in Syr­ia is the Assad gov­ern­ment.  The Wash­ing­ton pol­i­cy mak­ers want Assad over­thrown because he is not part of their glob­al­ist scheme.  We wit­nessed a sim­i­lar sit­u­a­tion in Libya, where the over­throw of Muam­mar Qaddaf­fi led to the dis­in­te­gra­tion of the state and a per­ma­nent state of chaos.

Vic­tor Ole­vich: What is behind the mas­sive LGBT rights pro­pa­gan­da cam­paign in the West? Why is this top­ic giv­en so much atten­tion, while more press­ing sub­jects are ignored?

William Lind: This is part of the ide­ol­o­gy of the rul­ing class here, which in fact is a vari­ant of Marx­ism.  It is the Marx­ism of the Insti­tute of Social Research, of the Frank­furt School, which trans­lat­ed Marx­ism from eco­nom­ic into cul­tur­al terms. This, of course, is com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent from the Marx­ism of the old Sovi­et Union, which was eco­nom­ic rather than cul­tur­al. The goal of cul­tur­al Marx­ism since 1919, when it was con­ceived inde­pen­dent­ly by Lukacs in Hun­gary and Gram­sci in Italy is the destruc­tion of West­ern cul­ture and the Chris­t­ian reli­gion. Lukacs, when he became deputy Comis­sar of Cul­ture in the Bela Kun gov­ern­ment intro­duced sex edu­ca­tion into Hun­gar­i­an schools, because he knew that if you destroy the sex­u­al mores of a soci­ety, then you have tak­en a giant step towards destroy­ing its cul­ture as a whole. The Hun­gar­i­an work­ing class was so out­raged by what Lukacs did that when Roma­nia invad­ed, it refused to fight and the Bela Kun gov­ern­ment was over­thrown. Cul­tur­al Marx­ism has devel­oped fur­ther in the 1930–1950s and is very much the state ide­ol­o­gy now in the West. The fact that Pres­i­dent Putin is caus­ing Rus­sia to reemerge as the most con­ser­v­a­tive of the great pow­ers, as Rus­sia was in the 19th cen­tu­ry, enrages cul­tur­al Marx­ists and makes Rus­sia their num­ber one enemy.

Vic­tor Ole­vich: What can Rus­sia do to sup­port healthy con­ser­v­a­tive forces in the West that oppose cul­tur­al Marxists?

William Lind: I think Rus­sia should do what it is doing right now – show­ing peo­ple in the West that you can resist cul­tur­al Marx­ism, that you do not have to think that it is the inevitable way of the future, and that a coun­try can decide to retain its tra­di­tion­al way of liv­ing and believing.

Vic­tor Ole­vich is a Russ­ian-Amer­i­can polit­i­cal ana­lyst based in Moscow. His arti­cles have appeared in Izves­tia, Plan­e­ta, Kom­so­mol­skaya Prav­da and oth­er major Russ­ian- and Eng­lish-lan­guage news­pa­pers and mag­a­zines. He is a fre­quent guest on Russ­ian polit­i­cal talk shows.

William Lind is a pale­o­con­ser­v­a­tive writer and for­mer direc­tor of the Cen­ter for Cul­tur­al Con­ser­vatism at the Free Con­gress Foun­da­tion.  He writes reg­u­lar­ly for the Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive mag­a­zine and has co-authored “Amer­i­ca Can Win: The Case for Mil­i­tary Reform” (1986) with sen­a­tor and for­mer Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Gary Hart.