09 fevereiro, 2017

Never Trump, Always Us



NEVER TRUMP, ALWAYS US


The huge sense of self-entitlement displayed by some people still manages to occasionally surprise me. Last month, “The Washington Post” published a piece about a cohort of Republican experts on defence, national security and foreign policy.

EXPERTS

in “Fabius Maximus Website” at https://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/06/21/theory-51618/

What was the news? These people felt disgruntled, frustrated and revolted, all because they felt rejected.

What was the cause of the poor things’ disgrace? They were NOT invited for ANY post in the new administration.

And it gets worse. They actually tried. They have made themselves available, they reached out, to no avail. No call, no letter, no e-mail. Niente!

WHY? WHY? Well, they suspect and fear it could be, because they have one thing in common, besides being experts: they all signed one or both of two open letters during the primaries and the election campaigns titled “NEVER TRUMP”.

Thus they fear to have been blacklisted.

Really? No way. They just declared “Never Trump” plus some derogatory comments on Trump, why on earth would that exclude them from the sweet positions and perks they coveted and regard as being their natural right?

Seriously, why on earth would they want to serve under a president, they clearly loath?

And why on earth would President Trump hire Trump-haters?

This ridiculous, hilarious and depressing episode, displays the utter arrogance of some of the elites who see themselves as being beyond reproach. The fact that they had the nerve to go public with their preposterous complaints, plus the fact that “The Washington Post” aired them, gives us a clear view of the comfy promiscuity of the so-called establishment, or the swamp, if you prefer.

If they were really blacklisted, serves them right.

30 janeiro, 2017

Embora Doa



“EMBORA DOA” *

 
Filipinos abatidos no primeiro dia da Guerra Filipino-Americana (1899-1902).



Todos somos confrontados frequentemente, se não diariamente, com notícias desagradáveis, más, péssimas, ou mesmo horríveis e vemos na TV coisas que preferíamos não ver (ou sequer saber). Ao ponto de desviarmos o olhar, silenciamos o televisor, ou mudamos de canal.

            Embora doa,
Nada fiz para mudar.
            Embora doa,
Nada vai mudar.

A verdade é que, olhando ou não, sentindo mais, menos, ou nada, há muito pouco (ou nada) que se possa fazer para mudar na grande maioria dos casos. E o que pode, eventualmente, ser feito, acarreta custos que não queremos tolerar.

            Ao som de armas adormeço
Embora doa,
Não me faz perder o sono.



Compartimentalizar faz parte do manual de sobrevivência. Se impusermos a nós próprios a cruz das desgraças de cada telejornal, talvez percamos bem mais do que o sono, mas nada se resolveria. É preciso desenvolver imunidades sem perder humanidade.

            Escorre sangue pelo ouro,
Em directo na TV
            Explode a carne
Em mãos de quem nada fez

Embora doa,
Não me sujo desse sangue.
Embora doa,
Há sempre outro canal.

A responsabilização colectiva por cataclismos que nos ultrapassam na causalidade, na motivação e na execução é um absurdo que decorre de uma visão distorcida da responsabilidade, ou de algum interesse individual ou de grupo. A discordância, a preocupação, a revolta, o horror perante o que vemos não nos faz passar de testemunhas distantes a responsáveis pelos factos.

E ainda bem que há sempre outro canal: todos temos o direito de evitar o lixo televisivo e o horror também. Evitar é diferente de ignorar. Auto-defesa ≠ indiferença.

Embora doa, a vida continua e nós também. Se Deus quiser.


* Este post foi inspirado pela música “Embora Doa” dos Klepht e inclui o vídeo clip da mesma.

27 janeiro, 2017

Washington's Russophobia



WASHINGTON’S RUSSOPHOBIA

The Russian Bear.
in “Radix” at www.radixjournal.com

Cold War-like feelings and attitudes are still alive and well in some quarters 25 years after the demise of the Soviet Union. Contrary to what one would have expected, these feelings run deeper in Washington than in Moscow

In fact, politicians, the media and think-tanks in the American capital act like they have seen red when the talk is about Russia. Although this attitude was intensified after Crimea’s return to the Russian fold, it predates the Ukrainian crisis.

With Donald Trump’s election victory and his imminent inauguration, the debate about Russia reached hysterical heights. What’s worse is that the ferociously anti-Russian stance is by no means justified by or founded on sound strategic or political grounds. It is more about plain hatred.

Congress, the media, the Pentagon, the moribund administration, several intelligence agencies all want(ed) more sanctions, more punishment against Russia. They all revile Vladimir Putin as if he were the devil’s incarnation. All of them point fingers at Russian authoritarianism and poor human rights record. And finally, they all abhor the prospect of a thaw in Russian-American relations and a rapprochement that could lead to a more cooperative and eventually more productive relationship. Furthermore, Trump and any member of his cabinet who has ever established some kind of rapport with Russia is labelled as someone untrustworthy, maybe even suspected of treason.

However, these are the same people who are shocked at the prospect of a tougher stance towards China, as if she was not a dictatorship with an established record of repression and a real geopolitical threat to US interests in East Asia.

However, many of these people hailed the rapprochement with Iran, despite her record of sowing mischief across the Middle East, being a leading sponsor of terrorism, not to mention her pursuit of nuclear weapons. And the pacification of US-Iran relations came at the cost of a lousy deal that will open a fast-track to a nuclear-armed Iran by the mid-2020’s.

However, many of these people support a strong and close relationship with Saudi Arabia who is very, very far from being a democratic, human-rights-abiding nation and who also happens to have a record of fomenting a radical vision of Islam.

One could go on pointing to the normalising ties with repressive Cuba, to increasingly authoritarian Turkey and Thailand who seemingly continue to enjoy Washington’s support and understanding, or even to those defending a constructive dialogue with the unblemished government of North Korea.

Russia was pushed and shoved, treated with neglect at best, with contempt at worst during the 1990’s. In this century Moscow gradually started to push back and to be more assertive (cf. the war with Georgia in 2008). Today, Russia’s strategic priority is to retain a sphere of influence that will guarantee her security. Russia’s political priority is to guarantee a seat at the table along with the other great powers, i.e., recognition of her own status as a great power. This was one of the reasons for Russia’s intervention in the Syrian War and it paid off.

One may dislike the “sphere of influence” concept, but the truth is that neither of these goals is preposterous, nor are they harmful to fundamental American interests. Unlike US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Joseph Dunford’s statement, Russia is not the United States’ number 1 geopolitical or national security threat and she will not be so unless cornered, or if one is thinking of a nuclear confrontation.

So, the remaining plausible explanation for this phenomenon is…Russophobia. There seems to be an ingrained hatred towards Russia in a substantial share of the foreign, defence and security policy establishment in Washington who cannot get over the fact that Russia, despite her many problems, is not the post-Cold War weakling anymore. And the more capable, assertive and cunning Russia becomes, the more intense the Russophobia strain in Washington gets.