Submitted by: Donald Hank
My answer to a question asked at Quora:
WHY DIDN’T THE SOVIET UNION FOCUS ON DEVELOPING [ITS] ECONOMY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH NATO INSTEAD OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT?
Don Hank, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
Because there was no chance of that.
NATO was created to counter Russia, on the pretext of stopping communism — though subsequent post-communist policies in the West suggest the motive may have been something else. In fact, The US had a genocidal plan to nuke Russia and its allies after the war.
Declassified: US Cold War Plan to Nuke USSR and Its Allies
This suggests a deep-seated animosity toward Russia itself, not just communism. Yet historians religiously ignore this grisly plot, seeking to protect the pristine image of the US as the defender of humanity.
Further incontrovertible evidence of a pervasive anti-Russia (as distinct from anti-communist) motivation in Washington was the adoption of the Wolfowitz Doctrine to “contain” Russia, in 1992 — a year after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, when this doctrine was no longer strategically relevant.
Thus there was no Soviet threat and yet, the US Defense Department adopted in its Defense Guidance Planning, the containment of Russia!
Yet it was Germany — NOT Russia — that had wrought unbridled death and destruction throughout Europe, and Russia had played a key role in stopping Hitler’s march of death.
Which begs the question: why not contain Germany as well, or instead?
The answer is that an anti-Russian bias was deeply embedded in the Western psyche for centuries, as detailed here:
Another source of anti-Russia bias was the fact that Western Christianity, represented by Rome, fought deadly wars against Eastern Orthodoxy in the lead-up to the Great Schism of 1054 and Christendom — including Protestantism — retained this in its memory in perpetuity, leading to an anti-Orthodox bias that lasts to this day, for example, in the irrational official US hatred of Syria and Assad, defenders of Eastern Orthodoxy.
For example, the American Cyrus Scofield, in his subsequently enormously influential annotated Bible of 1909, wrote — without any basis in scripture — that Russia would be the leader of the “northern (European) powers” to attack Israel in the latter days as prophesied in Ezekiel 38.
Scofield’s reasoning?
“All agree” (without specifying who these “all” are), and “Russia and the northern powers have been the latest persecutors of dispersed Israel.” He also mentioned that some of the names listed by Ezekiel in this passage sounded like the names of Russian cities. To Scofield, “Meshech” sounded so much like Moscow that it simple HAD to be that city.
This rationalization ignores the following facts
1—Spain had been the most virulent of all persecutors of the Jews, having banished them from their homeland in 1492. And
2—Since he was writing over 2 decades before the Holocaust, he could not have known that Germany would eclipse all the prior persecution of the Jews in all of history. He certainly would not have written these “prophetic” words if he had published these notes in 1940!
Despite this clearly slipshod approach and the obvious errors in Scofield’s notes, the Protestant world remained imbued with this Russophobic view of prophesy, which holds US Christianity in thrall to this day. To many Protestants, Scofield’s notes were divinely inspired and no one dared dispute them. I remember this from conversations with pastors and Protestant lay people.
This helps explain why the US public still uncritically supports the anti-Russian bias of its war department, including the assertion that Russia is always the aggressor, even though the US is invariably the instigator of major world conflicts.
Thus the USSR always had good reason to fear and mistrust the US-led West. BTW, this explains its takeover of surrounding states as buffers against a possible US-led attack. Not in conformity with international law, but certainly understandable.
Russia is still motivated to defend against the US-led West, chiefly NATO, in its foreign and military policy regarding the sovereignty of its territory.
No comments:
Post a Comment