Video thanks to Southfront
US media, officials need to treat all countries equally, no exceptions
NSS’ translation of an article from inosmi.ru preceded by our commentary.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. -- Jesus
The original article describes a kind of double standard that is, to our knowledge, exclusively American and is a facet of “American Exceptionalism” or “American Indispensability.” It is similar to what has been called a “partial hang-out,” ie, disclosure of a partial confession that is aimed at covering up or distracting from most of an illegal or immoral deed or policy. However, it differs from that concept in that it is not only partial but reveals essentially the whole truth about a US-perpetrated illegal or immoral deed or policy unapologetically, relying on Americans’ bias in favour of their country, notably their belief in a kind of godlike infallibility of their leadership that automatically negates the illegality or immorality of the misdeed when it is done toward a foreign person or entity, simply on the basis of a pervasive American belief that their country can do no wrong to another country or person because the US is automatically morally superior to all other nations. Thus such a wrong done by the godlike American leadership is no longer a wrong but a right and need not be atoned for or forgiven. Yet this same wrong would be severely condemned if done by another country, particularly Russia. Ironically, the Americans who automatically forgive the US perpetrators of the immoral deed or policy that slights foreign nations generally condemn these perpetrators when they are perceived as harming the interests of Americans, calling them the Deep State, for example.
This attitude is so completely selfish and ethnocentric that American officials who disclose their own injustice toward foreigners, particularly Russians, may show no fear in confessing it. They understand that there is such a massive bedrock of anti-Russian/pro-American bias in their audience that few will hold this injustice against them or even see that there is anything wrong with abusing Russians.
Many of the Americans defending these double standards call themselves Christians and use the expression “God and country.” But what they really mean is that their country is their god.
They not only show no empathy for the victims of US interference, including mass murder from the sky, in foreign countries, they actually think such empathy would be unpatriotic. Herein lies a fundamental difference with Russians.
It is high time American officials and politicians in their dealings with foreign clients were held to the same standards as a judge in a court of law. A judge is not entitled to treat a defendant more harshly because of race, religion, country of origin, etc. By the same token, no foreign country or person should have less rights than another in foreign relations. No exceptions.
Americans interfere in the internal affairs of Russia. Unaplogetically
The American media suddenly "saw the light.” After two years of formidable philippics against Russia, allegedly "interfering" in the elections there, they suddenly "remembered" that the US was interfering in foreign (including Russian) elections for decades. A series of articles and editorials have been devoted to this topic over the last week. This was done with reference to those who directly engaged in such interference on the American side.
This series began in the New York Times with the article "Russia isn’t the only one meddling in elections -- we do it too." Steven Hall, who answered to the CIA for interfering in the internal affairs of Russia for 30 years, frankly stated: "Washington ‘absolutely’ has meddled in foreign elections historically to influence other countries, and I hope we will continue to do so."
Professor Loch Johnson, for many years engaged in US intelligence and security issues, said that "Russian intervention" is only "a cyber-epic version of standard American practice that the US has been using for several decades at a time when they needed to influence the outcome of elections in other states.
When Laura Ingram, the famous talk show host on the Fox News channel, recently asked former CIA director James Woolsey whether the US continues to interfere in the elections and domestic affairs of other countries, he said with a sweet smile, "nyam-nyam-nyam,” adding: "Only for good purposes,” which occasioned a nonchalant laugh on the part of the host.
As you can see, it's okay, let them interfere. The goals are "good.” This is the difference between American intervention in Russian internal affairs differs and alleged Russian "interference.”
Approximately in the same spirit, former head of the National Intelligence Council, Gregory Treverton, continued. Answering Fox's questions, he unreservedly answered: "The US itself has a rich history of intervention (in the affairs of other countries - the author) ... The whole idea of foreign policy boils down to influencing the policies of other countries, something we intend to do. I hope that in time we will do it more openly - it will be better."
Almost all of the above specialists, without batting an eyelash, named as examples of special operations conducted by America, Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine. Is there nothing terrible in this? It was done for the sake of "good goals". And Treverton directly hinted that the US is doing this and now - during the Russian elections.
At the same time, not a single American journalist who spoke with these specialists was indignant, was not surprised at the very fact that the US is quietly engaged in this. They say that they have the right to do this, but attempts of other countries to intervene in the affairs of the United States must be blocked.
In the above-mentioned New York Times article, former CIA agent Hall explains these double standards quite simply: to put America on a par with Russia "is like saying that cops and bandits are the same, because both have weapons. Motivation matters." We wonder if by "bandits" he meant his country?
Thomas Melia, one of those who directly engaged in such intervention in the affairs of European countries (including Russia) through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Freedom House (Freedom House), wrote an article for the Atlantic magazine with the characteristic title "Russia and America are not morally equivalent." The point is that the US has not just a right, but a moral obligation to intervene in the affairs of other countries, and Russia is categorically forbidden.
In particular, Melia gives examples of his own interference in Russian affairs - for example, funding the association Golos, a recognized foreign agent in Russia. Or (think about) the program to engage in the policy of "Russians who are oriented toward civil society, but who do not want to associate themselves with a political party.” Just imagine for a moment what would happen in the American media if Russia began to finance similar programs in the US aimed at involving American voters in certain parties.
Many of these experts directly or indirectly acknowledge that the US supports certain nongovernmental organizations in Russia and, yes, protests. And if anyone doubts this, calling it a "conspiracy theory,” just show them these articles and interviews.