But there are other easy targets if all that's needed is a bogeyman: Iran (which still has "Death to America" ralllies) and China (which really is a geopolitical threat) spring readily to mind. I think Heime Israel's list is a good starting point to explain the choice of this bogeyman. Though the vilification of post-Soviet Russia lo…
But there are other easy targets if all that's needed is a bogeyman: Iran (which still has "Death to America" ralllies) and China (which really is a geopolitical threat) spring readily to mind. I think Heime Israel's list is a good starting point to explain the choice of this bogeyman. Though the vilification of post-Soviet Russia long predates Orange Man Bad, in fact, it even predates (and to some extent fueled) Vladimir Putin's rise to power. Some of us remember that Wesley Clark and Madeline Albright seemed eager to start WWIII with the Russians in their enthusiasm for backing war-crimes committing Muslim Bosniaks and Roman Catholic Croats in their war with war-crimes committing Orthodox Christian Serbs, that there were voices during the Yeltsin era in Russia that warned against pushing NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union, and thought the fomenting of the "color revolutions" was a bad idea. It would have been far better to embrace Russia as a new friend after the fall of Communism, but instead the neoliberals insisted on keeping Russia, almost definitionally, as an enemy.
"It would have been far better to embrace Russia as a new friend after the fall of Communism, but instead the neoliberals insisted on keeping Russia, almost definitionally, as an enemy."
They did embrace Russia as a great friend indeed, with gusto and $$ investment when they installed Boris Yeltsin. Putin, however, isn't their puppet, and his role in Syria is anathema to them. Moscow genuinely was greatly displeased at the prospect of a President Hillary -- she promised to impose a No Fly Zone in Syria!
I find it almost quaint that anyone here thinks Hillary and the neoliberal gang would choose to hate a country because they perceive it as too religious and anti-gay. Really, dudes, that's kinda precious.
No, they did not. If your theory were right, Wesley Clark would not have tried to order British troops to attack Russian troops arriving at Pristina Airport in June 1999 while Yeltsin was still President of the Russian Federation, two months before Putin even became Prime Minister, only to be talked down by the British General Mike Jackson. They embraced Russia as a business opportunity the way venture capitalists embrace a bankrupt firm which still controls valuable assests. If we had regarded Russia as a friend, there no one in NATO would have objected to the Russians arriving in Pristina, and we'd have actually considered Russian interests when NATO was gung-ho to prove its post-Soviet usefulness by picking sides in the Balkans.
But there are other easy targets if all that's needed is a bogeyman: Iran (which still has "Death to America" ralllies) and China (which really is a geopolitical threat) spring readily to mind. I think Heime Israel's list is a good starting point to explain the choice of this bogeyman. Though the vilification of post-Soviet Russia long predates Orange Man Bad, in fact, it even predates (and to some extent fueled) Vladimir Putin's rise to power. Some of us remember that Wesley Clark and Madeline Albright seemed eager to start WWIII with the Russians in their enthusiasm for backing war-crimes committing Muslim Bosniaks and Roman Catholic Croats in their war with war-crimes committing Orthodox Christian Serbs, that there were voices during the Yeltsin era in Russia that warned against pushing NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union, and thought the fomenting of the "color revolutions" was a bad idea. It would have been far better to embrace Russia as a new friend after the fall of Communism, but instead the neoliberals insisted on keeping Russia, almost definitionally, as an enemy.
"It would have been far better to embrace Russia as a new friend after the fall of Communism, but instead the neoliberals insisted on keeping Russia, almost definitionally, as an enemy."
They did embrace Russia as a great friend indeed, with gusto and $$ investment when they installed Boris Yeltsin. Putin, however, isn't their puppet, and his role in Syria is anathema to them. Moscow genuinely was greatly displeased at the prospect of a President Hillary -- she promised to impose a No Fly Zone in Syria!
I find it almost quaint that anyone here thinks Hillary and the neoliberal gang would choose to hate a country because they perceive it as too religious and anti-gay. Really, dudes, that's kinda precious.
No, they did not. If your theory were right, Wesley Clark would not have tried to order British troops to attack Russian troops arriving at Pristina Airport in June 1999 while Yeltsin was still President of the Russian Federation, two months before Putin even became Prime Minister, only to be talked down by the British General Mike Jackson. They embraced Russia as a business opportunity the way venture capitalists embrace a bankrupt firm which still controls valuable assests. If we had regarded Russia as a friend, there no one in NATO would have objected to the Russians arriving in Pristina, and we'd have actually considered Russian interests when NATO was gung-ho to prove its post-Soviet usefulness by picking sides in the Balkans.