Is Russia the aggressor of our time?

When we listen to Western main-stream media (MSM) it looks like Russia, not the USA, is endangering the World peace. This is an amazing testimony to the power of MSM to manipulate our thinking and perceptions because if we look at the facts, this is a laughable representation of the situation in the World.

Of course, if we look back in history, Russia or the Soviet Union did occupy other regions or countries, but we could blame for that Russian tsars or Soviet dictators (the most notorious of whom happen to be Georgian) – not the regular Russian people. Moreover, too often Russia was actually the victim, not the aggressor.

If we look at the history since the end of the Soviet Union, there are only two cases where Russia could be called aggressor: Georgia and Ukraine. What the MSM does not say is that Russia’s aggressive actions were provoked by the NATO expansion. If we look at the Russian actions without what led to these actions, Russia looks like an aggressor, but if we look at the whole picture, it looks like Russia is defending its national security interests – something that any of the Western powers that criticize Russia, would do when their security interests are at stake.

I have not heard of single evidence that Russia wants to conquer or occupy any of the ex-Soviet states or Eastern Europe, but that’s what we are repeatedly told and the propaganda musts be working because if we conduct a survey in USA or EU, we will most likely find that most people think that "Putin’s aggressions" are motivated by his desire to re-create the Soviet Union.

If we look at Russia’s actions since the end of the Soviet Union, we see that it wanted to be part of Europe, to be part of a “common European security” (even to be a member of NATO), but the West always slammed the door in front of the Russians. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine how would you feel when you try to act friendly and are treated as an enemy! I am even amazed that Russians (and most of all Putin) could swallow so many insults and still speak fondly of Europe and the USA.

If we look from outside our Western bubble, we do not see evidence that Russia wants to occupy any of its neighbours. I have not read or heard anything in the Russian doctrines, media, and even in the attitudes of regular Russians towards their Western neighbors that supports the idea that Russia wants to conquer them. Somehow, we forget that Russia voluntarily left half of Europe and started a transition from a communist system to a democratic one. The small Baltic countries would not exist today as independent states, if Russia did not let them. Russian leadership nowadays is quite smart and knows very well that occupation is costly, while selling oil and gas is profitable...

So, let’s look at some facts:

1. Russia’s military budget is less than 10 % of that of the USA, and even smaller, if we consider the combined NATO budget. You can hear the most recent budget numbers from Putin himself, in his answer to John Simpson from BBC, but for anyone who does not believe Putin, there is plenty of information on the Internet.
2. Almost all “peace-loving” Western democracies (including the Scandinavian countries!) have larger per capita military expenditures than Russia.
3. We all know the economic might of USA, but let’s ignore that and look at the facts in Europe: Russia has an economy smaller than Italy and 140 million citizens vs. EU with 500 million.
4. USA bases are all over the World and expanding. According to the Pentagon, there were 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries (N.B. stated in 2011), but other sources give a larger number. In contrast, Russia (under Putin) voluntarily removed its military bases from Cuba and Vietnam, and according to Putin, Russia now has only two oversees bases, which are in countries that asked for that in order to fight terrorism. If Putin lied, I am pretty sure we would have heard about that on the MSM. Speaking of military bases, this picture says a lot:
   
5. There was an American pledge that NATO will not move eastward after the unification of Germany. Now some American pundits are denying that and others are saying that (i) it was only a verbal promise, not in writing, and thus, not binding; and others are saying that (ii) it was a promise given to the Soviet Union, which does not exists anymore. These excuses reveal the morality the US leadership, but they also explain why the Russians feel cheated. Whatever one may think of the NATO eastward expansion, there is no doubt that establishing NATO bases in East Europe violates the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. NATO is trying to go around it by saying that these are “rotational”, not permanent armed forces, but that’s a laughable excuse. 
6. USA keeps nukes in Europe (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey) in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In contrast, Russia does not. By the way, NPT was the treaty that was used to sanction Iraq for its “weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program”. And the same was used to justify the sanctions against Iran for its “nuclear program”. I have no doubt the same treaty will be used as a "legal" justification to attack Iran some day in future, if the USA decides to do so…

It’s amazing how far from the reality the media can bring us! Considering the above facts, how can we – modern, educated, well-informed citizens of the free World, believe what the media is telling us?!? The contrast between facts and popular believe is so huge, that only brainwashing can explain it.

Alternative sources of information that I rely on

Since I left my country of birth in the 90’s I have been relying on English language sources of information, such as BBC World podcasts, The New York Times, NPR’s Diane Rehm Show and the English language news in the country in which I happen to live in (UK, Finland and now Sweden). Coming from an ex-communist country, I thought of BBC, NYT, and NPR as the most reliable and trustworthy sources of information. During the preparation for the Iraq war, however, I started to have doubts, because it became clear that these “non-partisan” and highly professional journalistic organizations were making propaganda. How else can the efforts to justify an illegal and unjust war be called?

Iraq was the starting point, but since then there were many issues that added to my suspicions – US political system, the growing gap between the rich and masses, the 2008 financial crisis, etc. On all issues, my favorite sources of information seemed to be making efforts to justify the policies of the rich and powerful elites. Of course, you can find different opinions on the op-ed pages of NYT, for example, but these are minority views that are easily drowned by the editorial pages, or the majority of journalists and commentators in these media organizations.

Since the Ukrainian crisis, I started looking for alternative sources of information. I still keep BBC, but already gave up on NPR, NYT (except for Paul Krugman) and here are the alternatives that I recommend.

RT

RT is portrayed in the West as the “Russian propaganda bullhorn”, but if we live in the Western propaganda bubble it makes sense to look at the propaganda of our opponents. This may give us a more objective view of the World, even if we do not think of RT as a reliable source of information. So far, I find RT to be more reliable than our MSM on many issues.

RT offers different shows, some of which I dislike, but for Americans, I would recommend The Big Picture with Thom Hartman. Also, you may be surprised, but the legendary Larry King is alive and well and you can watch him on RT.

If you are English, I recommend Going Underground.

If you want a comedy, I recommend Redacted Tonight. In my opinion, people who watch this comedy show are better informed than majority of Americans about the problems in their society!

Democracy Now!

If RT is too much for you, or if you want an American source, the best one I know is Democracy Now! They do not accept advertising or corporate funding, which makes them impartial. When the Ukrainian crisis started, it was so refreshing to see and listen to Jack Matlock – former US ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, instead of the anti-Russian hysteria on the MSM.

The Nation

If you prefer reading, I recommend The Nation – another independent alternative source of information.

Consortiumnews.com

Another source for reading is Consortiumnews.com, which is run by an old-fashioned investigative journalist Robert Parry, but you will find also many articles by other journalists and experts.

Other 

Beyond the above I would recommend following certain knowledgeable people, experts in their fields, who we can trust because they are not paid to promote a particular point of view. These are usually academics, or retired experts, who write/speak without fear of being fired. Here are a few examples:

Prof. John Mearsheimer

Prof. John J. Mearsheimer is a foreign policy academic. Here is his analysis on the Ukraine crisis, published in a specialized journal (Foreign Affairs), but he has tried to warn or educate the “non-professionals” by writing this article in The New York Times immediately after the most blatant coup in history in February 2014, and again in 2015, when there was a push to pass a bill for arming Ukraine, which would have led to open Russian military intervention in Ukraine and a conflict on a much larger scale.

Prof. Stephen Cohen

Stephen Cohen is undoubtedly the top American expert on Russia, but he is so old-fashioned that he does not even have a web-page. Luckily, his wife is the editor of The Nation, and if you search their sight you will find a list of his articles and interviews.

Here he is on Charlie Rose in 2013, and here is his last appearance on NPR’s Diane Rehm show in 2014, where he asked the other two “experts” in the discussion about the vote to impeach the previous president of Ukraine (Yanukovych) how can we accept that vote as legitimate when his party hold the majority, but there was not a single vote against the impeachment? The reason for the result of that vote (328:0) were the masked men standing by the parliamentarians, which was reported by the Russian media, but was somehow missed by the free Western media. Surely, the politicians and leaders of all Western democracies knew this, but it did not stop them from recognizing that vote and calling the new government “democratic and legitimate”.

So, the leading US expert on Russia, who for decades advised US presidents and was a regular commentator on the MSM for Russia, became a persona non grata after the Ukrainian coup because he dared disagree with the American “consensus” that blames Russia (and Putin) for everything wrong in the World. There are plenty of articles in the US newspapers, written in “response” to Cohen, but they just call him names without showing anything wrong in his analysis, or predictions.

Cohen says that he is a personal friend of Gorbachev, not of Putin, but he is forced to defend him because the demonization of Putin in the Western media is beyond anything we’ve seen even during the Cold War, which creates a wrong view of the Russian reality. For his effort to help us understand the Russian position he is called Putin’s pal, dupe, apologist, and toady. Who would dare say something pro-Russian after such civilized treatment by the MSM?

William Blum

In my quest for truth, I came across an author - William Blum, who does not have academic titles, but I find him factually impeccable.

Osama bin Laden says that if we want to understand why Al Qaeda is fighting against the USA, we have to read the book 'Rogue State', written by W. Blum!

Prof. Jan Oberg

Finally, someone based in Scandinavia – Prof. Jan Oberg, who was the director of Lund University Peace Research Institute (LUPRI). He runs TFF with his wife and you can find his articles and interviews there.