Srdja Trifkovic, has said that the US and Russia must work together to fight aggression in the world, despite the recent unveiling of the US’ new Defense Strategy.

Trifkovic said: “The Obama Administration’s “Defense Strategic Guidance” (DSG) was unveiled on January 5 as part of the broader programmatic document, Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. Presenting the DSG, President Obama spoke of “enduring national interests” in maintaining the unparalleled U.S. military superiority, “ready for the full range of contingencies and threats” amidst “a complex and growing array of security challenges across the globe.”

“The DSG further asserted that in the decades ahead it will be the task of the United States to “confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world.” The ideological framework behind the concept was evident in Obama’s State of the Union address three weeks later, when he repeated Madeleine Albrigtht’s irritating dictum that “America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs.”

“As long as I am President,” he added sternly, “I intend to keep it that way.” This is some light years away from candidate Obama bewailing “the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision.”

“The implications of the DSG for Russia’s strategic planners are clear: the rhetoric in Washington may vary from one administration to another, but the substance is constant. Obama made no attempt to support his claim that the security threats to America are growing, or to provide his own definition of “enduring national interest,” because he sees the entire world as a legitimate sphere of interest of the United States.

The DSG is intrinsically a challenge to Russia and other powers outside the U.S. orbit, and that challenge may only become more acute if Mitt Romney wins in November. A sober reassessment of the “reset” will be needed soon after V.V. Putin’s expected return to the helm of the Russian Federation. U.S.-Russian relations over the past two decades reveal a remarkable role reversal.

The Soviet Union came into being as a revolutionary state that challenged any given status quo in principle, starting with the Comintern and ending three generations later with Afghanistan. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, however, Russia has been trying to define her policies in terms of traditional national interests: stable domestic institutions, secure borders, friendly neighbors.

The old Soviet dual-track policy of having “normal” relations with America, on the one hand, while seeking to subvert her, on the other, gave way to sometimes naive attempts to forge a “partnership” with Washington.

“By contrast, the early 1990′s witnessed America’s strident attempt to assert her status as the only global “hyperpower.” This ambition was inimical to post-Soviet stabilization. Washington refused to accept that Russia has any legitimate interests in her near-abroad, while reserving the right to meddle in her internal affairs. In essence, America adopted her own dual-track approach.

“Contemporary U.S. strategic doctrine is reminiscent of an old blueprint for Soviet policy: the Brezhnev Doctrine. It was defined by its author as the principle that the sovereignty of a socialist country is limited by the will of the Kremlin: “The norms of law cannot be interpreted narrowly, formally, in isolation from the general context…”

The key difference between Brezhnev and the leaders of modern America is the limited scope of the Soviet leader’s self-awarded outreach. His doctrine applied only to the “socialist community,” as opposed to the unlimited scope of meeting “security challenges across the globe” by the “indispensable country.” No “interests of world socialism” could beat “universal human rights” when it came to determining where and when to intervene.

The “socialist community” led by Moscow stopped on the Elbe. It was replaced by the “International Community,” led by Washington, which stops nowhere. ”Under President Obama, this remains the self-referential framework for the policy of permanent global interventionism.

Sooner or later, however, U.S. foreign policy will collide with reality-Iraq and Afghanistan appear not to have been sufficient wake-up calls-and Washington, shorn of its ideological blinkers, will finally embrace the foreign policy imperative of the 21st century: Solidarity and strategic cooperation between the United States, Europe and Russia on the basis of their shared moral, intellectual and cultural foundations, as they face similar challenges in the years to come.”

Srdja Trifkovic is Foreign Affairs Editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, and Executive Director of The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies

The article US, Russia and Europe Should Work Together to Face Defense Challenges appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Srdja Trifkovic, Foreign Affairs Editor of Chronicles and Executive Director of  The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies, in a recent article, has claimed that Western media reporting on Russia is “bias” and “stereotypical”, and has said that the “West” should put more trust in Russia.

Trifkovic said: “Most Western media professionals tend to subscribe, consciously or not, to a neo-liberal world outlook in general and to the tenets of multiculturalism in particular. The result is notable media favouritism of allegedly disadvantaged, non-Western, traditionally non-Christian societies.

“Behind the veneer of all-embracing diversity, however, we find a carefully calibrated scale of acceptance or rejection of “the Other” depending on the cultural and political preferences of the media professionals themselves. The result is moral and intellectual relativism, which enables the media elite to pick and choose, which group or nation will be approved for the status of sympathy or victimhood, and which will be denied the benefit of the doubt.

“The image of Russia in the Western media indicates that Russia has been relegated to the latter category.”It sounds paradoxical,” said Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, referring to the Western attitude toward Russia, “but there was more mutual trust and respect during the Cold War.” His correct hint is that the Western opinion-makers detest post-Soviet Russia – the state that no longer is subservient, as it had been in the 1990s, but reviving its statehood and identity – more than the Cold War leaders of the West detested the USSR.

“The problem of bias, stereotypical reporting and quasi-analysis is by no means new. The collapse of Russia’s institutions and social infrastructure under Yeltsin was accompanied by Western approval of the key engineers of the disaster (Anatoly Chubais, Yegor Gaidar, Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Ryzhkov…). Their small political factions, lionized by the Western media, were duly supported by the quasi-NGO network funded in part by the Western taxpayers.

“Various anti-Russian stereotypes notably prevailed over common sense and journalistic integrity at the time of Mikhael Saakashvili’s attack on South Ossetia in August 2008, with the mainstream media pack attacking Russia’s “aggression” and criticizing Western “passivity.”

“While never missing an opportunity to hector Russia on democracy and criticize her human rights record, the Western media have been and still are notably silent on the discriminatory treatment of large Russian minorities in some former Soviet republics.

“In other words, the verdict depends on an actors’ status in the ideological pecking order of the media elite itself, not on his words and actions as such – in line with the Leninist dictum that the moral value of any act by anyone is determined by that act’s contribution to the march of history. V.V. Putin’s high approval rating is thus cited as further “evidence” of his manipulative populism and “proof” that democracy remains underdeveloped in Russia.

“The similarity of reactions to Russia on the right and left ends of the Western media spectrum reflects the perception that Russia belongs to a tradition that is unworthy of multiculturalist tolerance.

The problem stems not from any misunderstanding of the Russian mindset and tradition, but, on the contrary, from an accurate assessment by the media class that Russia as such is an obstacle to the realization of their political, economic, and ideological preferences in the modern world. The sin of the Russians, in the eyes of the Western media elite, is that they are still defined by their ethnic, cultural and religious identity.

“The problem exists. For it to be solved we need a paradigm shift in the West that would pave the way for a “Northern Alliance” of Russia, Western Europe and North America, as all three face similar geopolitical and demographic threats in the decades ahead. We need to rediscover and cherish the commonalities of the spiritual traditions, history and culture of the extended European family, from Anchorage via Berlin to Vladivostok.”

Srdja Trifkovic is Foreign Affairs Editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, and Executive Director of The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/utenriksdept/

The article Western Media Reporting on Russia is “Bias” and “Stereotypical”, Expert Says appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.