I'm having trouble figuring this out. President Trump went to Helsinki and had a meeting with President Putin. After the meeting POTUS said (when you add it all up) that, even though American "intelligence" said otherwise, he was taking Mr Putin's word for it that the Russians didn't meddle in the 2016 presidential election. "Why would it be the Russians?", he asked, then "Why
wouldn't it be the Russians?" He didn't know at the time -- it was Obama who received the PDBs, eh -- and doesn't know now.
Now the usual gang of gliberals, Democratic socialists, antifa Nazis and media stars are calling the President a traitor -- literally -- and unpatriotic for suggesting that the CIA and "military intelligence" (an oxymoron, for sure) might have been wrong on this one. If you think American "intelligence" never makes a mistake, perhaps you'd be interested in some of this yellowcake I can get for you, cheap! In spite of the ongoing witchhunt in Washington, nobody can say for sure what the Russians did or didn't do in the runup to the election. The thing sure is that what the Russians did (if anything) didn't have much effect (if any) on the result. The Democrats and other "resisters" are still in denial that the American people chose The Donald over Crooked Hillary.
What, I wonder, do the anti-Trumpers think POTUS should have done at the historic meeting. Should he have pulled a Glock out of his pocket and shot the Russki-in-Chief in the face, like Michael Corleone in
The Godfather? Of course not. He'd have been recognized!
Now the blaze in the anti-Trumpers hair has become an inferno because President Trump has invited President Putin to come and have a chat at the White House. With confusion still swirling around what the two men discussed behind closed doors in Helsinki, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov said it’s important to "deal with the results" of their first summit before jumping too fast into a new one. But, he said, "Russia is always open to such proposals. We are ready for discussions on this subject."
Which is as it should be. Seems to me we're losing sight of the importance of the meeting itself. When the heads of two of the world's three super-powers sit down to talk, something good may come of it, or not, but, as Churchill supposedly said, "
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war."
[In fact it was one of Churchill's successors, Harold Macmillan, who put it exactly that way. According to his official biographer, Churchill's words were, "Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war." Ed.]
Those folks -- especially Republicans -- who criticize President Trump for making nice with President Putin should keep in mind that American foreign policy was badly in need of a reset after eight years of Obamian dithering and wimpishness, and POTUS is leading the much-needed change in direction.
This summer alone, he has stood up for America, to the discomfort of its "allies", at the G7 and NATO summits, sat eyeball-to-eyeball with Kim Jong-un (something no-one thought possible) and now in serious talks with the Russian president about Syria, the Ukraine and other matters of vital importance. All that and all POTUS gets is grief. Obama was only a few weeks into his presidensity, had done nothing (and never did) and what did they give him? The Nobel fucking prize!
The present geopolitical situation reminds me of that described by George Orwell in
1984. Writing at the beginning of the Cold War, Orwell predicted that, come the iconic year, the world would be divided into three super-states:
•
Oceania -- including all of the Americas, southern Africa, Australia and the British Isles, the main location for the novel
•
Eurasia -- Europe and most of the old Soviet Union, plus a little chunk of the Middle East
•
Eastasia -- Japan, Korea, China and northern India.
The three states are in a perpetual state of warfare -- sometimes two against one, sometimes all three against each other. These wars are fought in the disputed territories, running from North Africa over the Middle East and southern India to Southeast Asia. Orwell's gift of prescience is spooky, isn't it?
There's not much "super" to Orwell's super-states except their size. All three are totalitarian dictatorships.
Oceania's ideology is Ingsoc -- English Socialism, of the kind now being espoused by "socialist democrats" like Bernie Sanders and
the latest political rock star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Eurasia's state creed is Neo-Bolshevism, not unlike what Russia has today under the Putin régime.
Eastasia's politics and religion are blended into the Obliteration of the Self, something like the Buddhist-inspired fascism you might find (so they say) in today's Myanmar or Thailand.
These ideologies are very similar one to another, but the "proles" -- the common people -- are told the opposite. "Of course the Russians hate our American values! If you're not against Russia, you must be against America!" Sound familiar?
Orwell suggests that the conflicts between the super-states may not be real at all. It's clear that the media of Oceania are completely one-sided and in the habit of fabricating "facts" -- fake news! A dissident book central to the plot of
1984 suggests the two other powers may actually be a fabrication of the government of Oceania, which would make it the government of the entire world. An alternative theory is that "Airstrip One" (the British Isles) is not an outpost of a greater empire, but the sole territory under the command of Ingsoc, which fabricates eternal global war to keep its people permanently mobilised (check), scrutinized (check) and on rations (and check).
The world as portrayed in
1984 is purely fictional of course. The book was written in 1949. What George Orwell predicted could never happen... could it?
Further reading (by the sheerest coincidence): "
The idea of Eurasia is once again the subject of geopolitics", by "Banyan", in
The Economist, 19/7/18. "A growing number of strategists argue that the emergence of a cohering Eurasia is the key feature of a new world order that is taking shape.... The emerging order is one that Marco Polo would recognise." George Orwell too.
UPDATE ADDED 22/7/18: Further reading: "
Mainstream media deliver most outlandish and hyperbolic reactions to Trump since election night", opinion piece by Dan Gainor, Vice President for Business and Culture of the Media Research Center, on
Fox News.
It would be easy to dismiss obese American film-maker Michael Moore as a left-wingnut who is completely out of touch with the political sentiments of the majority of the American people. But you can't, because every now and then Mr Moore demonstrates remarkable insight into the mood of the public.
Piers Morgan, seen here kissing Peter Andre [Who he? Ed.], is one of those annoying liberals who can't decide if he's a journalist or media personality or celebrity or what -- a poster boy for "jack of all trades, master of none".
There's not much "super" to Orwell's super-states except their size. All three are totalitarian dictatorships.
