Will Russia Stop the War? 

By Israel Shamir

Israel and the US , the terrible Siamese twins conjoined by their Jewish
communities, are on the warpath. The usually knowledgeable Uzi Mahanaimi
wrote in the Sunday Times that the plans have been laid out, and
preparations are being completed for the resumption of the war on Syria
and Iran temporarily stopped by the Hezbullah fighters in the mountains
of Southern Lebanon . President Bush hopes to improve his sagging
popularity by the war, says Alex Cockburn. A condemnation of Iran by the
Security Council is all he needs before the attack at dawn. Until now,
such resolutions were produced after a short period of haggling. Now
there is a chance Russia will use its veto, and then the US plans would
be shelved and the assault on Iran cancelled. 

Before 1990, such a vote would be certain. In those days of the
much-maligned Soviet Union, the Russians advanced many causes of which
we still enjoy the fruits: together with their Cuban allies they stopped
the apartheid tanks in Angola and brought about Mandela’s release and
the creation of a more egalitarian South Africa . The Russians supported
European trade unions and Communist parties, preventing the onslaught of
privatisation, outsourcing and globalisation. If you had it better
before 1990, and you probably did, it was due to this Russian influence.
The Russians supplied the enemies of the Empire with their cheap and
good weapons, and they blocked the Empire’s attempts to legitimise its
aggressions via UN resolutions. Their planes and their ground-to-air
missiles helped the Vietnamese and the Koreans to win the war. Their
influence and abilities were limited: the Russians never could compete
on an equal footing with the immense power of the West harnessed by
Washington . But they could spike the wheels of the American Juggernaut,
and so they did. The Empire hated them and wished them dead, and many
Western intellectuals supported this wish. 

My friend, Russian maverick poet Edward Limonov, wrote a short story in
the 1980s: what would happen if Russia were to disappear altogether from
the face of Earth? The US would intervene all over the world on massive
scale, and capitalism and imperialism would regain ground lost since
1917 with a vengeance, he prophesied; and so it has happened: Panama,
Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan were invaded. The rich grew
richer, the middle class shrank, freedoms were undone on the pretext of
a "War on Terror." 

The Western Left contributed a lot to this unhappy development, for
Soviet Russia was undone by double perfidy. In the end, their elites
betrayed their masses and privatised the wealth created by the Soviet
people. But before that, we, the Western Left, had internalized the Evil
Empire cliché and repeated every slogan manufactured by the enemy. We
chanted Let My People Go, and demanded an extra privilege for Jews, the
right to emigrate. We did not care that the Palestinians had no right to
return to their homes, while the Russian Jews wanted to move into
settlements in occupied Palestine . We supported Russian dissidents,
though they hated all we stood for and considered Pinochet ‘a soft
leftist’. We accused Russians of their long-gone Gulag, and brought in
Abu Ghraib. We condemned Russians too much, and contributed to their
feeling of isolation, and to the second, fatal betrayal by their elites.

We, good and sincere people, were misled and tricked by the media
machine into an outburst of condemnation against our only mighty ally.
The Western Left did not survive the collapse: it went into
self-destruct mode, and what remains is represented by the likes of Tony
Blair. All over the Western world, the elites celebrate their unlimited
wealth and luxury, while ordinary people are worse and worse off. Not
only industrial workers: unless you are a CEO you live worse than you
did, and your chances to improve your lot are worse than they ever were.

But luckily Russia did not disappear forever, though it was a close
call. Boris Yeltsin sold its resources to his cronies and to Western
companies, shelled the Parliament and transferred media and oil into the
hands of Jewish oligarchs. Yeltsin installed Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB
officer and would-be Pinochet, with orders to keep the stolen property
in the hands of thieves and the country in the Western grip. Now it
appears that the enemies of Russia miscalculated with this man. Instead
of doing a Pinochet on behalf of the oligarchs, Putin broke the
oligarchs’ grip; he exiled and jailed some crooked tycoons, and restored
a semblance of law and order in the country. He returned the main TV
channels to the people. My wealthy Jewish acquaintances in Russia tell
me that money does not rule in the country anymore. One can buy
comforts, but not the power. 

The oil revenues began to flow into the country, not only to private
coffers in Swiss banks. This revitalised the economy. The infrastructure
ruined by Gorbachev and Yeltsin is being restored and improved; housing
is being built in vast amounts; the once-degraded army is receiving new
hardware; main streets shine with bright new shops; new and repaired
highways with millions of cars connect villages and cities. The Chechen
war is over; that republic has been reintegrated into Russia , and its
dwellers enjoy full civil rights. Russian ballet again captures eyes and
hearts. After the total collapse of the film industry in the 1990s,
Russians are again making many movies, even blockbusters with mass
appeal (like The Night Guard) as well as “festival art”. Obsessive,
guilt-ridden lamentation has given way to new prose and poetry.
Thousands of churches have been refurbished and their onion domes
gilded; all the churches are full on Sundays. Historically a country of
Orthodox Christianity and Sunni Islam, Russia preserves this tradition,
and here the Christians and Muslims live in relative harmony despite the
efforts of pro-American forces to inject Islamophobia into Russian
hearts. The state TV, taken away from Jewish oligarchs and freed from PC
tyranny, shows a lot of footage of the venerable grey-bearded Patriarch
(the Russian Pope) and the nimble karate-fighter of a President
enforcing the faith-and-authority tradition of Russia. 

A mammoth 1500-page-long novel by the Russian painter Maxim Kantor, The
Drawing Textbook , le dernier cri of Russian literature, has been
received by many readers as a proclamation of volte-face: Russia ’s
ideological subservience to the Mammonite West is over! Kantor does not
stop at condemning comprador capitalists: they were preceded by
comprador intellectuals. Kantor defends Christ from the humanist
assaults: Christianity was betrayed by humanists, in his view. Kantor is
not fond of the new Russian regime: he regrets that Russia gave up its
socialism, and considers 20 years of capitalist development as a flop:
“barracks’ socialism was replaced by barracks’ capitalism”. With this
book, a modern War and Peace, Russia’s re-invention is officially on the
way, and this great country with its great people may yet turn the tide
of history. 

It is doubtful whether Russia will turn leftwards anytime soon. But the
international activism of adventure-seeking Americans is not acceptable
to any independent Russian state. Russians are not happy with the
American military bases surrounding Russia, with the aggressive push of
NATO, or with politically motivated limitations on Russian companies.
The Russians feel that they were cheated 20 years ago, when the West
proclaimed its desire to reach full peace and harmony, and to respect
the independence of nations. Believing this bull, the Russian troops
left East Europe, but American troops still lounge in Germany, Italy,
Japan; they advanced into Poland and this summer tried to land in
Crimea, next to the Russian fleet's home base. The Russians left
Vietnam, but the Americans still occupy Okinawa . 

Russia’s leaders feel unsafe: since the Soviet Union’s demise, leaders
of independent sovereign states – Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic -
have been snatched and imprisoned for denying the will of Washington.
Neither is Russian wealth safe: Russia, like many nations, is obliged to
keep its savings in the bottomless pit of the American economy, but
nobody can collect on these investments yet. Norway invested all its oil
income in the US stock market, and lost all of it; Swedish pension funds
went the same way. If this is the case with the best friends of the US ,
what will happen to its enemies? Iran, Iraq, Palestine lost all their
savings by decisions of the US administration. Moreover, its legal
system allows the US to sue foreign states for unlimited amounts. Thus,
the families of victims of the Lockerbie crash received from besieged
Libya a cool ten million dollars per passenger, although the American
courts authorise ten thousand times smaller sums for the victims of
American bombings – if indeed they receive anything at all. 

Russia feels unsafe, for the US has invaded other sovereign countries
more often and with greater impunity than Hitler ever did. This feeling
is shared by a less vocal China. “The great issue that divides the U.N.
is no longer Communism versus capitalism, as it once was; it is
sovereignty”, preached the New York Times. Its scribe, James Traub,
lists many countries that “abuse their citizens under protection of
sovereignty”. In vain will you look there for the name of Israel, though
the Jews killed over a thousand people in Lebanon, and over 200
civilians last month in Gaza alone. 

The great divisive issue of our times is actually somewhat different:
whether the US and Israel are the only sovereign countries, while others
have a limited "demo" version. Why does Israel get away with aggression
(and now with its sea and air blockade of a sovereign UN member state,
Lebanon) while peaceful Iran must be censured? Why has Israel been able
to reject all pertinent UN resolutions and yet never had sanctions
applied against it, while Iran is about to be bombed? Are non-Jews less
valuable than Jews? The case of Iran provides a good opportunity for
Russia and China to present a case for sovereignty and non-interference.

The better Soviet policies were embedded with the Christian ethos of
Russia: the tradition of helping the downtrodden and the weak, of
resisting aggressor is one of them. Post-Soviet Russia inherited these
traditions. But in this case practical need coincides with the call of
compassion. Unless President Putin views with equanimity the possibility
of being snatched and brought to some American kangaroo court himself,
he may want to contemplate stopping this orgy of invasions. Iran is a
case of one invasion too far. Iran is a sovereign country; it did not
break international law. Its decision to enrich uranium is fully within
its rights according to the NPT. Whether they worship Allah or Jehovah
is entirely their internal affair. And by applying its right of veto,
Russia would signal that interference in internal affairs of sovereign
states will not be tolerated and legitimised in the UN. Russia won’t be
alone – China, equally unhappy with US interference, may support it with
its own veto. 

The alternative is too much to consider: even if the UN resolution
doesn't refer to sanctions, the US is famous for its cavalier way of
interpreting UN text. Any condemnation (even a soft one) will be used as
carte blanche for nuking Iran and taking it over; then the US chain of
military bases will run continuously around the south flank of Russia
and China, through Turkey, Georgia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan .
"Rebellious" Ahmadinejad will be brought to Tel Aviv in iron chains,
while the US takes over the oil resources of Iran, and by using Iran and
Iraq oil, undermines the Russian position in the world economy.
Afterwards, under this or some other pretext, they may confiscate
Russia’s assets, threaten Putin with Ahmadinejad’s fate and return
Russia to its miserable position of Yeltsin’s days. Thus, using their
veto in the Security Council would be a very prudent and wise step for
both Russia and China, especially if it were accompanied by granting
Iran full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. 

The results of a Russian veto would be greater than just postponement of
the US assault on Iran : it would send a strong signal that the end of
Pax Americana is nigh. The “Old” Europe may take it as a cue and regain
its independence, even demanding to remove those vestiges of WWII - US
military bases - from Europe. The “New” Europe may understand it is out
of step, and curtail its pro-American and anti-Russian partisanship.
Japan could demand an end to the occupation of Okinawa. The Law of
Nations will rule the world again, instead of the will of the Pentagon. 

And then the time for a new American independence drive will come,
independence of America from its Jewish Lobby. Such a drive took place
in the revolutionary Russia of the 1920s, when Russian Communists argued
about whether they should go for world revolution, as Trotsky demanded,
or for creating socialism in their own country, as proposed by Stalin
and Bukharin. If their militant activism is rejected, Americans may
discard their neo-Trotskyites, both Republicans and Democrats keen on
spreading their “world democratic revolution”, in favour of
isolationists who prefer building to spreading. Supporters of spreading
– from George W. Bush to Hilary Clinton – are great friends of Israel.
The bipartisan support of Israel within the US political elites means
also their subservience to the Jewish Lobby. Rejection of the Lobby may
become the single slogan of a new American revolution, of a new American
political party of independence and non-interference on the way to
creating a United States the world can live with. 

---------------------------------------------------------

Unwillingly, the world rolls down to a next bout of war, as Israel and
the US are pushing for sanctions on Iran . Of the great powers, the UK
seems to follow orders of Washington, Germany is unable to say “no” to
Jews, while France is about to elect the most pro-American and
pro-Israel president, Nicolas Sarkozy, in its history. China is
unwilling to get involved, and is rumoured to go along as long as
sanctions do not refer to oil and gas. Russia appears to be a lonely
voice for peace in the Middle East , for reasons of its own. 

A few days ago President Putin called Prime Minister Olmert, and
enquired whether Israel intentionally goes the way of the Crusader
Kingdom to perish and oblivion by refusing to settle with its
neighbours? Olmert was shocked: nobody dared to speak to him like that.
European and American leaders usually stood up smartly and declared
their support of Israel ’s right to defend itself. Russians were equally
considerate towards Israel - since 1991, when its ambassador in Tel
Aviv, a late Mr Bovin, was frequently mistaken for an Israeli ambassador
in Russia . 

When Russia began to assert itself after the catastroyka, and Russian
leaders made their first modest proposals regarding the Middle East,
Israel took it as an insult. This defeated country should never give us
advises, fumed Shimon Peres in live broadcast. But Russia continued to
gather strength, and Russians again became active participants in the
process. The recent visit of Russian Foreign Minister Mr Lavrov to
Damascus and Tel Aviv gave another _expression to it. Lavrov tried to
convince Israeli leaders to give up on Iran sanctions. Sanctioned Iran
will feel isolated, threatened and will leave the NPT. Sanctions will
lead to war, explained Lavrov, but Israeli officials did not mind the
war, they insisted on sanctions. Then, the Russians pulled out their
proposal of a new international conference for Middle East, Madrid-2.
This idea has support of Arab states, but Israel rejected it, as well.
It seems that Israel marches to war and considers it inevitable. 

This feeling of inevitability has much to do with the US policy.
Unravelling of 9/11 mystery in the US may push Bush administration to
speed up its war plans. For the first time since 2001, the mainstream US
media gave coverage to “conspiracy theories”, and revealed that more
than a third of American population believes in Administration
involvement. Major European newspapers followed the path. Though there
are many faulty small and large details in the official version, the
main reason for public doubt lays elsewhere: if some bad and hard Muslim
terrorists could perpetrate the 9/11 attack, why they failed to do
anything similar afterwards? Ridiculous attempts to present ‘liquid
explosives plot’ as a new 9/11 further undermined popular trust. Bush
may feel that the war with Iran is the only way to escape trial. 

There are hard-nosed Russian experts who do not mind the forthcoming
war. In their view, America ’s involvement in Iran will mirror Russia ’s
own unfortunate experience in Afghanistan . If you call Vietnam ‘bogging
down’, and Iraq ‘quagmire’, you’ll have to invent a new word for Iran .
The oil price will go up to $200, - enough to gold-plate every loo in
oil-producing Russia , as Marx prophesied. Attack on Iran will destroy
America – why bother? Why should we try and stop it, say the experts. 

But Putin has strong internal reason for trying to defuse the war, as
the Zionist plot of inflaming inter-religious conflict may undermine
Russia . The roots of the plot are to be found in the transition period
from the USSR to post-Soviet Russia , when a young and fresh Israeli
Lobby in Moscow was formed. Its members were supporters of Market
Democracy, Neo-liberalism and Privatisation. Support for Israel was a
shibboleth for deference to the West’s wishes. While ordinary Russians
regretted the demise of the Soviet Union , Russian Jews – together with
upwardly mobile Russians - actively supported the market reforms and
cheered suppression of democratically elected Parliament in 1991 and
1993.[1] These pro-Market forces seized media; like in the West, Jews
own large share of media owners and editors, as well as large banks and
capitalist enterprises. Though not obsessively Zionist, they still
harbour a warm feeling for Israel . For them Israel is not a place to
escape mythic antisemitism, but a place to escape criminal police, as so
many Jewish crooks from the US, France, England and Russia did. 

Pro-Israeli forces in Russia successfully promoted a conflict between
the Christians and the Muslims; proposing to integrate Russians into
anti-Muslim “white” front. The Jewish-owned and edited media imported
anti-Muslim discourse wholesale. Though it was quite foreign to Russians
who are used to live together with Muslim Tatars since the dawn of their
history, media succeeded to poison minds. Chechnya was the key to this
development: generously supported by the Jewish tycoon Berezovsky,
Chechen fighters by their acts of terror enforced anti-Muslim feelings.
“ Gaza is our Chechnya ”, used to say Israeli emissaries, though
Chechens (as opposed to Gazans) had all civil and political rights of
Russian citizens. 

In the same time, hundreds of thousands of Chechens and other Muslim
ethnic groups migrated into northern Russian cities, where – as opposed
to Western Europe – they were economically very successful and caused
much envy among the native population. Recent riots in Kandapoga were a
result of this success. Immigration is a tricky issue, and on the whole
it is good for Zionists, whether in Europe or in Russia . The Russian
nationalists of Le Pen style (and worse) became friends of Israel and of
Zionism. They support Israel’s fight against the Muslims, and they hope
the Jews will go away to Israel (needless to say, this pipedream is not
likely to occur with thousands of Russian Jews moving back to prospering
Russia each month). Heads of the Russian Jewish Congress were reported
to transfer large sums of money to the more obnoxious racist groups in
order to point them against the Muslim immigrants. 

Thus Putin’s administration is gripped in a vice between pro-Western
liberals with their sympathy to Israel on the ‘left’, and on the ‘right’
by Russian ‘white’ nationalists who object to influx of Muslim
immigrants and support rabidly anti-Muslim Tel Aviv. This vice endangers
cohesiveness of the country, as not only North Caucasus , but Tatarstan
may break away. As opposed to Europe, Russia has not only Muslim
immigrants, but a prominent native Muslim minority. Preservation of
Russia depends on defeating this anti-Muslim trend, for otherwise, the
country will be devastated and broken into warring fiefs. Thus Putin’s
Russia opposes the Conflict of Civilisations’ paradigm. 

But will it suffice? The Jews, that is organised Jewry and the Jewish
state, are definitely keen on promoting war between Christians and
Muslims. Their powerful media gave us recently the Satanic Pictures and
cared to deliver them to each Muslim. Now they gave great publicity to
the Pope speech, while pro-Zionist Pakistan delivered the Muslim
opinion. This is not the first direct involvement of Pakistan ’s ruler
in promotion of the Zionist plans: a few weeks ago Pakistani Secret
services provided support for the “liquid explosives plot”, totally
discredited since then. (No less an authority than Lieutenant-Colonel
(ret.) Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer,
who was awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his command of the
Belfast Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit, has suggested that the police
and government story about the "terror plot" was part of a “pattern of
lies and deceit.”) 

Nor are they satisfied with media coverage: Amira Haas, the courageous
Haaretz reporter in the West Bank, indirectly accused (in Haaretz
September 20, 2006) Israeli Secret Services of an attack and arson of
churches in Nablus , Tubas and other Palestinian cities. Our American
correspondent Tom Mysiewicz wrote: “This is obviously just another
effort to create a war of mutual extermination between the Christian and
Islamic worlds.” While our French friend Xavier Lavaud explained: “The
goal of Zionists was to obscure the recent condemnation of Christian
Zionists by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. They chose a sentence of
the Pope out of context.” While regretting the Pope’s comment, we should
spend more effort in trying to defuse this situation than in blaming the
head of the Catholic Church beset as he is by the enemies of the Church
and of Christ. The war can be stopped, but it calls for our strong and
concerted effort. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- 

[1] Over 50 % of the Jews (as opposed to 13 % of the Russians) supported
the pro-Western coup of President Yeltsin. In 1995, 81% of the Jews
voted for pro-Western parties, and only 3% for the Communists (as
opposed to 46% of Russians), according to the publication by the Jewish
sociologist Dr. Ryvkina in her book, Jews in Post-Soviet Russia (1996).
The divergence was even greater in the following election campaigns.