Sometimes, it is very difficult to know what to think of the major American media. After all, they are owned by private corporations. In particular, they tend to be owned by a number of multinational oil companies with a vested interest in much of how the international, as well as national, news is covered here in the United States.
Most of them tend to be quite jingoistic, and hardly actually providing the news, as making it. Take, for example, how the media seemed to be beating the drums of war in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002-03. Maybe many have forgotten about that conflict, especially in the light of Putin's Russian invasion of Ukraine. But having a collective short term memory on a national level is no excuse. I remember going to Canada a couple of times around the time of the invasion, and being quite struck by the stark differences. Here in the United States, there was discussion of how to best proceed with the invasion, whether it should focus on airstrikes, or if a major land force would be the best option. I also remember former NBC News personality Matt Lauer - once a very influential man on television - praising British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his bravery in sticking with the United States as the Bush administration was clearly trying to convince Americans that war was necessary.
By contrast, the news on the situation in Iraq was very different in Canada. They were debating whether or not the invasion was a good idea to begin with. And they were reporting on the lack of any real proof that the Bush administration's case for war had. Not long after the Iraq quagmire began, after Bush had given his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech on that aircraft carrier, the entire case for why we went to war was called into question when no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) were found. Before long, the whole raison d'être for why we went to war with Iraq in the first place crumbled as it became clear that there were no WMD's. The Bush administration lied, and they scrambled to try and point the finger of blame at anyone and everyone else, claiming that they were given misleading information. In fact, the Bush administration quite clearly wanted to go to war, and the major media - again, owned by multinational corporations with a vested interest in what happened in the Middle East - failed to do their job and challenge the Bush administration, or cover the shortcomings of their arguments, which had so many holes in them, that they kind of were the equivalent of Swiss cheese. This made the United States look bad before the whole world, and almost the entire world was opposed to the war from the beginning.
What followed was a quagmire that lasted nearly two decades, and which was costly in every sense of that word. It cost a tremendous amount of money. It cost thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, their lives, with many, many more injured. And it cost the United States much of it's good standing and trustworthiness. Much of the world began to view us as a threat to world peace. Still, the war was at first supported by a majority of Americans. In time, however, it grew less and less popular, until it became popular to be against the war. But when questioning the war mattered most, the American news media utterly and completely failed in it's one simple task: to provide the news.
So it is important to try and take the news seriously, and to provide some real news, hopefully with context. Personally, I feel that the major media - Western as well as Russian, and not just American this time - is failing once again. It feels that there is far too little context for understanding this war, and why it broke out. Also, the news itself often seems contradictory. Personally, I feel that this has been true of our coverage of Putin in particular. Listen to some people, and he is an absolute genius, albeit an evil one. If you listen to, say, Hillary Clinton and millions of her supporters, they will still argue that Putin is responsible for Trump winning the 2016 election. Trump himself seems to reinforce these conspiracy theories with his ambiguous crush of Putin, most recently referring to the man as a genius in his strategy regarding Ukraine just prior to the invasion.
Yet, it seems to me that the man is hardly a genius by any stretch. It feels to me, in fact, that the West was kind of provoking him to take such a drastic action. After all, if we look at the context, the major issue with Ukraine was whether or not it would continue to be more or less a neutral buffer state between Russia and the West, or if it would be allowed to be enticed enough by the lure of Western riches and power that it could and would join the European Union and especially NATO. Already, Russia borders a number of NATO countries that were formerly on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain, and actually part of the Warsaw Pact. These include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland. That was not enough, and many Western nations were enticing Ukraine to join both the EU and NATO. It cannot be surprising, then, that Putin and many Russians feel that this is a threat, and even, possibly, blatant aggression, having a military alliance traditionally was specifically aimed at keeping Russia in check. After the humiliation that Russia suffered after the end of the Cold War, with Americans beating their chests about how they "won" the Cold War and many Americans taking delight when Russia was weak and on it's knees, the surprise was not how someone like Putin could rise in Russia, but that it did not happen sooner, or that maybe we did not get an even more extreme example.
Now, I am not condoning the Russian attack. Putin always seemed to be very calculating. This is the reason that many Americans seem to think of him as some kind of evil genius. But it seems to me that he clearly miscalculated with this war in Ukraine. He probably overestimated Russia's military might and efficiency, and underestimated the Ukrainian military and general resistance, as well as their will to fight. Also, it seems clear that he underestimated just how strongly the world in general would react to the war, and condemn his nation's war of aggression.
All of that said, however, it feels to me like the West was almost trying to provoke Putin into doing something like this. When Putin invades Ukraine, he clearly becomes the bad guy of the moment, much like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were the bad guys for their moment. And NATO, an organization that seemed to no longer have a clear purpose for existing once the Soviet threat ceased to exist, suddenly seems more relevant than ever, now that Russia is, once again, an Evil Empire. Spending on the military industrial complex has always been greatly inflated and, frankly, ridiculous in postwar America. Now, military expenditures are increasing dramatically in Europe, as well. Some people are making a tremendous profit from all of this, much like some people - perhaps some of the very same people - made a tremendous amount of profit from the Iraq war.
Viewed in this context, it suddenly seems like the failure of major media sources in the West is far easier to understand. Once again, it feels like people with vested interests are controlling the narrative. There are mixed signals, much like there was with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Saddam suddenly turned into the next Hitler or Stalin, and Iraq's military might at his command seemed to border on superpower status, with a 45-minute response time, a massive arsenal of WMD's, and even the possible "mushroom cloud" that members of the Bush administration insinuated. Yet, these same members of the Bush administration also promised a quick and decisive victory, that Saddam would be defeated and ousted in days, or perhaps weeks at most, and that Iraqis would embrace us as liberators. Indeed, Saddam was ousted quickly, but that seemed to undermine just how serious and immediate a threat he was to begin with. As for Iraqis opening their arms and embracing Americans? Well, we all saw just how much they welcomed Americans in places like Fallujah.
Now, it almost feels like déjà vu all over again. Look at this narrative, and see if it bleeds with any inconsistencies:
We need to keep the Russian threat in check still, even though they dismantled their empire, and Gorbachev followed through even to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the end of his own political career, on what apparently were policies of glasnost and perestroika made in good faith. We won the Cold War and thrilled, but we need NATO to keep that Russian threat in check, even though they are far weaker than they used to be. Putin is a mastermind, to the point that he managed to get Trump, an ally of his, into the White House (and conveniently, this had the added perk of silencing serious discussion on why people did not like or trust Hillary). Putin held power over Trump, to the point that he controlled him. Yet, Trump broke Obama's policy of refusing to provide military aid to Ukraine (look this up yourself if you want to verify how accurate this is). NATO bases come ever closer to surrounding western Russia, but Russia is regarded as the aggressor and the threat to world peace. Putin is an evil genius, yet, he fell for what sure seems like a trap set for him by the West by invading Ukraine. Everybody assumes that Russia will have a cakewalk and take over Ukraine quickly and with little resistance. Instead, Russia's military stalls, and Ukraine's military power and will to resist was apparently far stronger than almost anyone could have believed.
Frankly, there are a lot of contradictions there and much of it feels a little too convenient to be fully believed. Yet, this level of contradiction seems to be continuing. This time, it seems like it is regarding the other major world power viewed as hostile by the West: China.
Here are snap shots from my phone that I took earlier today. They show headlines regarding whether or not China might help Russia with military and economic assistance with it's invasion of Ukraine. It feels like I should stop this here, and simply post these headlines (these are just the headlines, and not the full stories) from, respectively, US News and World Report, The Guardian (which is British), and CNN. Take a look, and see if they do not seem to contradict one another. Please take a look at these headlines and judge for yourself, without further comment from me. The last thing that I will say is that it sure seems unclear to me whether or not China is going to help Russia, simply based on these headlines.
Take a look for yourself:
No comments:
Post a Comment