Very very rarely do I ever reference an audio file as blog source material. In fact, I cannot think off the top of my head that I have ever done so. My reasons are fairly simple for this: I get tons of emails, many of them including videos or audios, and I simply haven’t the time to listen to all of them. In fact, very few of them. It takes much less time to read an article, than to watch or listen to files.
But this one came to me from Mr. M.D., a reader here, and when I saw the header in his email, “NY Professor shares similar thoughts on (the) Ukraine crisis and Russia,” I decided to listen to it. The clip, as it turned out, was sixteen minutes of a segment from a radio show in the USA hosted by well-known talk show host Michael Savage. I do not listen to much talk radio or, for that matter, as most of you know, to much mainstream television media in the USA. For those outside the USA, it is difficult to characterize Mr. Savage along the conventional lines of “left” or “right” or “liberal” or “conservative,” because while he certainly leans to the right and is generally conservative, his voice is not the slavish insane sort of nonsense one hears coming out of the Republithug party and many of its shills in the American radio or television media. His style is direct, often caustic and satirical, sometimes offensive to this or that group or vested interest, but nevertheless independent. He thinks for himself, and is not afraid to have independent thinkers from both the left and right on his show. One may disagree with him or his guests strongly, one may question his “style” or passion or some of the wilder things that occur on his show, but in an age of watered-down flannel-mouthed spin coming from both political parties, this is perhaps a welcome relief.
With this in mind, I present the following intriguing exchange from Mr. Savage and his guest, Professor Stephen Cohen of New York University, and I do so because they, like me and so many other people, are simply mystified over the current American foreign policy vis-a-vis the Ukraine and Russia, and I thought this was an exchange readers here should listen to, as it deserves some review and commentary, and occasions my typical “high octane speculation.” Here’s the segment from Mr. Savage’s show, The Savage Nation:
Note that both Mr. Savage and Professor Cohen have both shared their mystification over the counter-intuitive nature of American policy vis-a-vis Russia and the Ukraine. Professor Cohen states right up front that the Ukraine business is destroying our national security, and both gentlemen argue, in my opinion correctly, that the USA needs Russia as a partner not a nemesis for its own national security. Both express mystification over why the USA is prodding and poking Mr. Putin. Professor Cohen moreover indicates that some people simply want to diminish Russia’s status as a Great Power if not to revoke it altogether, and points out that for Russia, this is perceived (correctly) as an existential matter over the very nature of Russia’s future.
So why am I bothering you with all this?
Because if you listen carefully to this conversation between Professor Cohen and Mr. Savage, essentially two lines of reasoning are being offered for the scenario that we have seen unfolding. The second scenario, mentioned toward the very end, is that there is no policy or agenda, and that the whole thing is being driven by essentially stupid, mindless people.
But the other scenario, mentioned in the context of a conversation about the lack of knowing just “who Obama talks to”, is more disturbing, and this is mentioned by Professor Cohen toward the very beginning of his remarks, namely, that “some faction” in Washington and Brussels is driving the scenario, and wants to incorporate the Ukraine into NATO. What emerges during much of the conversation is the fact that neither man can pin down just who Mr. Obama is “listening to,” we cannot identify whence the insanity originates. There have been clues, here and there, of course, that Zbigniew Brzezinski or other “neo-cons” or George Soros are driving the policy. But while Brzezinski and Soros may be bishops or knights or even rooks in this chessgame, they’re not the queens or kings. They may be fellow-travelers on this flower-strewn march into insanity, perhaps, but I do not intuit that they are the sources of it.
Which raises the potential for some high octane speculation, assuming the “some faction” scenario is indeed behind it all, and which may explain some things. I go back to the disturbing thing that occurred shortly after Mr. Obama took office, at the state dinner given for visiting then-Prime Minister Singh of India. You’ll recall that this dinner was “crashed” by a couple who were not on the invitation list, but who nevertheless gained entry, and this type of security lapse, in my opinion, cannot have happened except by design, and it sends a clear message: “we can call off your security at any time, remember JFK, and do as we say.” And such messages require, by the nature of the case, extensive organization(or penetration, of an organization, which also implies an organization of its own). Such messages imply “control files”, the means to gather and use them, and a hidden agenda. Once again, I suspect that Mr. Sergei Glazyev, one of President Putin’s advisers, may have been resorting to more than just hyperbole when he noted that the real Nazis were not in Kiev, but in Washington, and that the battle would have to be waged there.
The point here isn’t anything about Professor Cohen, or even Mr. Savage’s show. The point here is that Professor Cohen, whose contacts certainly exceed this author’s, and whose expertise likewise exceeds it, is just as mystified as you and I are, not only about the counter-intuitive foreign policy we’re seeing, but that he is raising the significant – and as yet unanswered – question of just who, really, is advising Mr. Obama. The point, eloquently made by Professor Cohen, is also why “the difficult questions” are not being asked by any of the five hundred and thirty-five members of Congress, as both “sides of the aisle” seem to be slavishly following the “demonize Putin” agenda.
All of these points suggest that policy is being set in places and by people that exist outside even the normal currents of back-channel influence and power-pedaling, the channels that would include such people as Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Soros, and so on.
And if you’re like me, you’ll find that profoundly disturbing.
See you on the flip side…