The Western liberal democratic world order faces grave threats on multiple fronts from a resurgent Russia, according to Molly McKew’s recent article for Politico. US leaders should recognize they are already at war, she says, and act decisively to defend the interests of international liberal elites.
McKew, who previously worked for anti-Russian politicians in Moldova and the former Soviet republic of Georgia, has long been a harsh critic of Russia and its president Vladamir Putin. She previously aligned herself with neo-conservative hawks in the George W. Bush Administration who advocated remaking the entire Middle East in the image of American liberal democracy. She pushed Washington, DC to militarily intervene in order to somehow turn warring Arab tribes and Islamic militants into defenders of “human rights, development, and representative government.” Since the disastrous US intervention in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria which led to the rise of ISIS and destabilized formerly secular regimes throughout the region and brought on the chaos of the migrant crisis in Europe (and here at home), McKew has turned her attention to promoting conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe and Syria.
McKew openly refers to the “liberal world order” she defends and jumps on the US media’s bandwagon of explaining away Hillary Clinton’s loss by attacking “Russia’s open and unprecedented interference in our political process.” This is deliberately mis-leading terminology because no one is actually accusing Russia of hacking voting machines (which are not connected to the Internet) or giving funds to alter the US presidential election. Democratic operative John Podesta simply fell prey to a common and easily-avoided phishing scam – something the vast majority of Internet users easily avoid. He gave out his password to small-time scammers and as a result his emails were made available to the world. This would have been of little consequence except that the emails detailed information about Hillary’s support for open borders across all of North and South America, the Democratic Party’s attempt to subvert the Catholic Church and attempts to rig the Democratic primary debates in Hillary’s favor. It was not Russian hacking which set Hillary up for defeat, but “Russian hackers” make for an all-too-inviting target for US journalists and Democratic politicians. They also make for an opportunity for hawks such as McKew to exploit mis-information to raise support for US actions against Russia.
The activist-journalist invokes several arguments (which can be easily rebutted with a little investigation) in order to present Russia as a growing threat. She invokes Russia’s military spending, which is a higher part of the country’s gross domestic product than that of Western European nations or the USA. However, she neglects to point out that US military spending is over 9 times as high as Russian military spending. The US maintains large naval fleets which are completely unmatched by the Russians. The US also has scores of foreign military bases around the world, enabling it to project power in Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. Russia does not have this capability, enjoying only military outposts in neighboring allied nations as well as small, pro-Russian enclaves and its naval base in Syria. McKew also invokes Russia’s military intervention in the Ukraine and Georgia. In both of these cases Moscow intervened on behalf of adjacent strongly pro-Russian enclaves. In Georgia, McKew’s former boss, President Mikheil Saakashvili, instigated a war in 2008 against the tiny break-away republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. McKew worked as Saakashvili’s adviser before and during that war, which Georgia lost badly. The Georgian president was a close ally of US neo-conservatives and Israeli hawks and strongly supported the US war in Iraq. Russia intervened and repulsed the Georgian forces which invaded the pro-Russian enclaves. It has since defended the republics’ independence but has not taken any further territory in Georgia – which it could have done rather easily. McKew has also repeatedly attacked Putin for his government’s support for the Russian-speaking people of the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine and for the accession of Crimea. Both regions were populated by mostly Russian-speaking people who strongly opposed the new anti-Russian government in Kiev, Ukraine. Crimea, given its unique geographic advantage, was able to secede from the Ukraine with almost no bloodshed. But the people of the Donbass who revolted against Kiev immediately came under attack. Russian volunteers have assisted local militias in fighting back against Ukrainian forces, establishing a stale-mate. The conflict is quite complicated and goes back to the George Soros-funded Euromaiden revolution in Kiev in 2013 in which a pro-Russian government was toppled in street demonstrations and fighting and replaced by an anti-Russian government. McKew and other hawks such as US Senator John McCain have attempted to portray the conflict as a simple invasion by Russia of the Ukraine, which would be alarming if it were true. However, as explained above, that is hardly the case. Mis-information on this subject abounds and is regularly repeated by journalists such as McKew in the US media.
A SOUTHERN NATIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
The Southern people overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump in the recent presidential election. Trump ran on a platform favoring re-establishing positive relations with Russia while Hillary Clinton ran as a hawk against Russia and has continued to attack that country in the press even after her defeat. Southerners have no interest in conflict with Russia. The US military is heavily comprised of Southerners and therefore in any major conflict we would suffer more than the people of other regions of the USA. We also do not share the liberal, globalist politics of interventionists such as McKew, Soros, Bush and Hillary. We have far more in common with those politicians of Europe running on conservative or nationalist/populist platforms – most of whom are supported by Russia’s conservative government. Once Trump takes office there will be the possibility for a Russian conservative-European nationalist-US Trumpian new order which will have among its priorities establishing peace in Syria and ending the refugee crisis and stopping mass immigration. This will be a major blow to liberal internationalists such as McKew who constantly agitate for conflict with Russia, the overthrow of stable secular regimes in the Middle East and the mass migrations of Third World peoples into the West.
From a Southern nationalist perspective, the last thing we want is conflict with a conservative and pro-Christian Russian government. Russia is friendly toward Right-wing nationalist parties in Europe and is generally in favor of policies which would save the West from demographic decline and replacement. This is not to say that Putin’s regime is perfect or that we identify with all of its policies. Southerners and Russians are different ethno-cultural groups with distinct cultural traditions and values. Our Anglo-Celtic roots informs an approach to economic and domestic policies which probably would not be entirely favored by the Russian people. But that is not a problem. The Russians have their values and policies and we have ours. What the West and Christendom today need is outward unity and strength in the face of invasion, Islamic terrorism and Progressive de-constructing of the pillars of our civilization. Voices such as those of Molly McKew who oppose Western interests and constantly agitate for wars which would in no way benefit our people should be countered strongly – especially by Southerners who can see through the rampant activist-journalism in the US media.