|
In the following you will find our translation of an analysis from the Russian site Ria Novosti, with commentary and notes [in brackets] by Vince Dhimos. The political class and msm are constantly warning of “fake news” from Russia. The Ria Novosti article translations we publish at NSS are almost all based on US sources, however, so what part is fake? The one appearing below is no exception. Yet, without even making the effort to read and ponder such an article, professional mainstream Russophobes, which control most of the media and the American mind, immediately jump to the conclusion that anything like this published by a Russian outlet is “Russian propaganda.” Americans are thus virtually prohibited from reading articles by Russians – even if all the information sources are American – and making up their own minds. The translation below shows that liberal icon George Soros is co-founding a new organization based on the proposition of abandoning US interventionism.
George is the interventionist par excellence, so this is a shocking turn of events. How a discussion of this could possibly be Russian propaganda is a mystery to me, but not to worry, the Neocons and Neoliberals will not hesitate to raise this accusation because, you see, being Russian is evil, reading anything from Russia is evil, and anyone who discusses Russia without saying something negative about the country and its government is also evil. But I wonder how many Americans or other Westerners actually buy this steaming pile of blather? Now as for Soros, he is now organizing supposedly to oppose US interventionism, but he is probably the one mover and shaker who has done more than anyone to promote regime change in countries that the US Establishment considers too close, either physically to Russia. The latest attempts are in Georgia, Hong Kong and Kyrgyzstan. Just to give you an idea of Soros’ influence in just these three countries, here is what I just now brought up in an internet search: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/newsroom/open-society-foundations-kyrgyzstan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqyArUU38U This last link indicates that Soros, while no longer allowed to operate a foundation in Hong Kong, still has a presence there in the form of an investment fund. Note that there are also NGOs active in Hong Kong that are funded by US NGOs that are no longer intervening in politics there. This opens the door for under-cover intervention in protests of the kind occurring there now. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/i6i998nmrio5fntw1mkmjw2 QUOTE from our translation below: “It seems he understands that in order to bring the ideology of liberalism out of crisis, it is necessary to start searching for new meanings and abandon the well-established but hopelessly outdated clichés of the last century. “Of course, one must be very sceptical of such attempts by the American elites to finally grasp the destruction of the aggressive policy of regime change around the world.” Yes, in fact, I would go so far as to say that as long as Soros runs foundations (generally searchable using: “Open Society” plus country name) in any country in the world, he simply is not being sincere about abandoning interventionism. You can’t have your cake and eat it both. So if you want to see whether he is sincere about promoting non-intervention, you can investigate any uprising anywhere to see if it is home-grown and spontaneous or Soros-instigated by doing a search with the search term: Soros foundation [plus country name] and see if one of his foundations is still open and running. If it is, he is hardly sincere about his new Quincy Institute co-founded with the Koch brothers. Remember the proverb: Beware of Soros bearing non-intervention. This Soros is broken. He’s suddenly begun to sponsor peace initiatives. June 11, 2019 Another analytical centre of foreign policy orientation is being created in Washington. You might think this is hardly news. So many of these think tanks regularly open and close in America that they’re countless. But the emergence of this institute is very actively discussed in political and journalistic circles, since its main sponsors are prominent representatives of two antagonistic strata of the elite, the Koch brothers and George Soros. In order for a novitiate in American internal affairs to understand the meaning of this event, let me clarify: this is as if a hundred years ago Lenin and Denikin had created an analytical centre for joint study of the results of the First World War. If the activity of Soros in connection with his whirlwind activity in the post-Soviet space is well known to our reader, the Koch brothers are not so familiar, since for the most part they are connected with domestic American politics. It can be said that billionaires Charles and David Koch are to Republicans and US libertarians what Soros is to Democrats. And maybe more so since they are much more active at the local level, constantly sponsoring election campaigns of various Republican candidates in individual states, districts and cities. The Kokhs have created a whole empire of media and analytical centres supported by them in different areas, and are almost officially called Kokhtopus – that’s how widely distributed the tentacles of this conservative monster are. And now, according to the newspaper The Boston Globe, two incompatible camps are being showered with 500 thousand dollars to create the Quincy Institute of Responsible Government. The existence of such a union is striking in itself. But even more formally declared goals are being promoted, for the sake of which this institution is supposedly being created: "The Quincy Institute promotes the idea of leading US foreign policy out of endless war and conducting active diplomacy in pursuit of international peace." The institute has chosen a sentence from the speech of the sixth President of the USA John Quincy Adams as the main slogan, after which the centre is named: America "no longer searches abroad for monsters that must be destroyed." It is declared that this institution, which has planned a full-fledged start-up for November of this year, will promote the line of non-interference of the USA in the affairs of foreign countries and will try to develop a sound foreign policy. In general, this is a direct confession that the current aggressive behaviour of Washington abroad does not look very healthy even in the eyes of American political scientists. Financier George Soros wrote an article in which he predicted the disintegration of the European Union and compared the EU leadership with the Soviet politburo. On radio Sputnik, an expert in international affairs, Dmitriy Ofitserov-Belsky, opined that it might be worthwhile paying attention to Soros’s position. In principle, there is also nothing new in the calls to abandon interventionist policies. This kind of campaign was developed by various US presidential candidates. Donald Trump resorted to such appeals to some extent, and the ideologist of Trumpism, Steve Bannon, considers this idea to be fundamental. Moreover, Trojan horses have already appeared among the Democrats - urging abandonment of the regime change policy in the current campaign to nominate US President Congresswoman Democrat Tulsi Gabbard [I am puzzled as to why this author calls such support for Tulsi Gabbard a Trojan horse]. But for such ideas to be financially supported by George Soros, whose numerous centres and centrics around the world are engaged in the opposite policy, this is in fact something new and amazing. This phenomenon deserves separate study and analysis. What prompted the notorious billionaire to take a step that is so unconventional for him? Yes, it was the very crisis of liberal ideology that Vladimir Putin pointed out in the recent sensational interview with the newspaper The Financial Times. This interview quite naturally triggered a violent and extremely negative reaction on the part of liberals of all stripes. The President of Russia stepped on their sore spots, outlining a clear problem that since 2016 has manifested in a series of defeats of the liberal establishment for which no solution can be found. As for the ideological outcry of the neoliberals, The Economist magazine even devoted the last issue to an in absentia dispute with Putin, stating on the cover that it was not liberalism that was in crisis, but rather conservatism. The liberal establishment of major Western countries clearly lacks ideas and strategies. Instead of doing a serious analysis of its painful defeats of the last three years, it could not come up with anything better than to dig up a foreign enemy (and, as we know, Russia was cast in this role). On the one hand, this is the easiest way out, because otherwise you would have to admit responsibility for the current crisis. But, on the other hand, this approach does not solve the problem itself, just drives it into a remote corner. Apparently, Soros has recently begun to realize the hopelessness of such approaches. This is evidenced by his last year’s speech about the "existential crisis of Europe" and the frankly panicky article this year entitled "Europe, please wake up." In these, the main sponsor of the liberal ideological centres openly opposes one of the fundamental principles of the neoliberals, namely, the European open-door policy for migrants. That same policy is staunchly defended by the the numerous rabid fledglings of Soros's nest in various countries throughout the continent. Now, as we see, the billionaire has attacked the shrine of American liberals - the US policy of global interventionism. It seems he understands that in order to bring the ideology of liberalism out of crisis, they must start searching for new meanings and abandon the well-established but hopelessly outdated clichés of the last century. Of course, one must be very sceptical of such attempts by the American elites to finally grasp the destruction of the aggressive policy of regime change around the world. A single analytical centre that will promote a sensible foreign policy strategy in Washington, does not at all mean that this voice will be heard by someone and taken into consideration. However, the very fact that the influential sponsors of two opposing ideological currents of America even thought about this possibility inspires cautious optimism. What if, with the formation of new, more robust strategies in American politics over time, there will eventually be more sensible politicians who seek, not confrontation with Russia and other global actors, but peaceful coexistence? To some, these expectations seem naive - they say America still cannot exist otherwise. Perhaps this is so. But in any case, nothing in Washington’s policies will change without a search for new ideas and approaches. Therefore, all movements in this direction are welcome.
Comments
|
