As the complex situation between the United States and Russia continues to develop, one controversial cultural and economic commentator suggests that nuclear war is indeed possible. Paul Craig Roberts is famous for being intimately involved with so-called ‘Reaganomics’, having served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration. Since spending time in the US government, Roberts who has become increasingly critical of several US administrations, and has floated many outlandish conspiracy theories, recently authored article explores the current dynamic between Russia and the United States.
Russia wrong to rely on diplomacy
Roberts suggests that Russia is banking on diplomacy to improve its relationship with the West. There is no doubt that the relationship between Russia and the United States has deteriorated in recent months and years, as both nations have become increasingly suspicious of one another. As ValueWalk has reported previously, the geopolitical situation continues to be defined by the efforts of Russia and its major ally China to forge a new world order to counteract the global authority exercised by the existing Anglo-American consensus.
However, Roberts believes that Russia’s attempts in this arena are completely misguided. Russia has particularly pinned its hopes on a document referred to as the Minsk Agreement, but which should be more accurately named the Minsk Protocol. This agreement effectively halted the war in the Ukraine. But Roberts rightly states that this document has no Western support, and that the only way that Russia can be acceptable to the West in diplomatic terms is to accept vassal status.
Instead, the situation in the Ukraine is far from resolved. There is no doubt that the Western powers still view Russian behavior in the region as completely unacceptable, and indeed NATO has been massing troops in the region since the Minsk Protocol was signed. Yet Robert suggests that there is a radical, yet common sense a solution to the crisis, that would immediately put Russia in a stronger position.
Russia should simply end the Ukraine situation by adhering to the requests of the territories in the nation that were previously formally possessed by Russia to reunite with it. Once this has taken place, there will simply be no further crisis, as there is no possibility of the Ukraine attacking Russia whatsoever. Ultimately, the main players in the region would all have got exactly what they wanted; the people of the Ukraine would have reunited with Russia, and the nation would be stronger in territorial terms.
Naturally, this suggestion would weaken the United States and British position in the region, as it would run the contrary to their public pronouncements of what they believe to be correct. Indeed, Roberts writes that the reason Russia has not gone down this particular road is that the hierarchy of the nation believes that it would be needlessly provocative, and ultimately upset Europe in particular.
Upsetting Europe
However, if Russia is to establish itself in a strong geopolitical position then it is argued that one of the most valid things that it can do is indeed to upset Europe. There is one key reason for this; it would benefit from making Europe understand that being part of a Washington plan against Russia is risky for the continent.
It has often been written that the reliance of Europe on Russian gas and oil will ultimately secure the prominent position of Russia within the world for many years to come. Russia is in the rather invidious position of supplying its declared enemies, whose forces continually conduct provocative flights across Russian borders, with the energy to put those very planes into the air in the first place.
Roberts suggests that this is a massive failure of Russian diplomacy, and that the time for a more aggressive policy has come. Certainly, it is difficult to contest Roberts’ view that only one of the two sides involved in this geopolitical conflict is interested in diplomacy, and it isn’t the one led by the United States.
In response to the situation in Russia, Roberts points to the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine, the neoconservative document that is promoted as being the basis of US foreign and military policy. This particular document suggests that any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on the unilateral action of Washington should be considered a threat to the United States. This is very much in line with the sort of language that we hear coming from military personnel in the US when other countries develop significant military apparatus.
With this in mind, Russia is certainly a target for the Washington administration at the moment, and it isn’t the only country in the world with this unfortunate status. Both China and Iran are also placed firmly in the crosshairs of Washington at present, and Roberts believes that it is impossible to seek a diplomatic solution at this point in time as the desires of the two sides simply contrast completely.
Syrian conflict
For example, with regard to Syria and Iraq, Russia has worked for peace, called for international law to be respected, and stated that the consignment of radical jihadist elements is in the interest of the locality. By contrast, the actions of the American government have made it clear that Washington is far from scared of warfare, considers no legal constraints, and the US government has also openly funded radical jihadist elements. Indeed, a BBC poll conducted this week, intended to prove the complete opposite, found that over 80 percent of Syrians believe that the United States has effectively funded ISIS into existence.
As the geopolitical situation continues to develop between these two diametrically opposed nations, Roberts suggests that Washington stands for only one value, namely world hegemony. He believes that if Russia and Iran let their collective guard down that they will be nuked eventually, and that China could even face nuclear weapon attacks as well. Defending these undoubtedly strong statements, Roberts points to neoconservative documents, and suggest that this mentality is still very much in control of the Washington administration.
These are certainly stronger words from an outspoken critic of the United States and its foreign policy, but a perspective nonetheless well worth considering closely.
