2016: Russian Documentary Aims to Avert Nuclear War - Western Media Still Busy Demonizing Putin
If ‘World Order’ is a piece of propaganda, it is sophisticated and serves certain higher values, not the interests of individuals or power for power’s sake. In effect, it is a wake-up call to avert nuclear war by reining in exceptionalism and safeguarding the principles of the UN Charter.
The Russian documentary World Order, released by the state broadcaster Pervy Kanal on Sunday, 20 December and posted on LiveLeak with English subtitles, received some attention in Western mainstream media, which is not always the case with news generated in Moscow. Euronews, in particular, drew on a minute or two out of this one hour forty-nine minute film to present good tidings to the world: President Putin had just publicly stated that he is ready to cooperate with European countries on shared concerns including terrorism, environmental issues and organized crime notwithstanding the sanctions being applied to Russia over Ukraine. This happy finding ignores completely the nature and overall content of the film in question, which heads in a direction 180 degrees at variance with the Euronews spin, as I will explain in a minute.
Meanwhile, BBC reporting on New Year’s Eve celebrations around the world on Friday morning, 1 January, showed Vladimir Putin delivering his 2016 greetings to his countrymen over the caption “Russia names Nato as threat to security.” In a classic propaganda exercise, the editorial staff of the British Broadcasting Company merged two very different pieces of news that bear the same dateline: the anodyne salutation of the Russian president and the 41 page National Security doctrine which he had signed earlier in the day. This is propaganda not only because the stories were unrelated but because the Nato threat is covered explicitly in just one page out of the 41, which take in a great many other security metrics such as education, import substitution, religious and spiritual convictions. I mention this case because the major arguments set out in the Russian Security Doctrine flagged by the BBC are precisely the same as those in World Order. For both, ultimate authorial responsibility rests with one man: Vladimir Putin.
Thus, one might ask why interpretation of the film was positive and interpretation of the doctrine is negative. With this arbitrariness and unimaginable superficiality driving the news that Western elites, not to mention the general public, take in with their morning coffee is it any wonder that we hear repeatedly that Russian state behavior is unpredictable? And is it any wonder that even well-meaning fighters for peace in the West are misguided about what constitutes the way forward in relations with Russia if we are to formulate an alternative to the War Party that controls Washington and Brussels.
In what constitutes a rare exception to the meager coverage given by mainstream media of the airing of the documentary World Order, Britain’s Telegraph newspaper correctly identified the form and rather significant bits and pieces of its content. In “Vladimir Putin: ‘We don’t want the USSR back but no one believes us,” Allison Quinn, their Kiev- based reporter, correctly likens the new film to the documentary Crimea. A Way Home, released in mid-March on the same state channel to coincide with the anniversary of the ‘Crimean Spring.’ Like that documentary, World Order is built around interview segments. Quinn tells us vaguely that although the film includes ‘interviews with other political figures and leaders, Mr. Putin is undoubtedly the headliner.”
These and a couple of other points picked up by Quinn are indeed among the most newsworthy sound bites in the film. However, the Telegraph, like all other MSM, has missed entirely what the documentary is about. Moreover, their reporter says nothing about who directed the documentary, about who the ‘political figures’ appearing in it are.
Without mincing words, the documentary World Order is a devastating critique of US global hegemony in the name of democracy promotion and human rights ever since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1992. It is directly in line with the Russian President’s first repudiation of the American unipolar world issued in his speech to the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and his further, ever more explicit exposes in a succession of speeches that took on specific manifestations of ‘American exceptionalism.’
World Order illustrates through graphic footage and the testimony of independent world authorities the tragic consequences, the spread of chaos and misery resulting from US-engineered regime change and color revolutions, of which the violent overthrow of the Yanukovich regime in Ukraine in February 2014 is only the latest example. The very title of the film follows on Vladimir Putin’s address to the 70th anniversary gathering of the UN General Assembly in September 2015 which had as its central message that world order rests on international law, which in turn has as its foundation the UN Charter. By flouting the Charter and waging war without the sanction of the UN Security Council, starting with the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999 and continuing with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 up to its illegal bombings in Syria today, the United States and its NATO allies have shaken the foundations of international law.
What constitutes the ‘added mile’ in Vladimir Putin’s reasoning set out in World Order is his identification of the root cause of the failure to bring the USA back to reason all this time. It lies not in given individuals, like Barack Obama or George W. Bush, but in the mentality of Western, and in particular American elites formed by their impunity, their ability to walk away from the catastrophes their policies create without any feeling of responsibility, without being held to account. Their evasion of responsibility and failure to learn from error come from being the richest and militarily most powerful nation on earth.
The foreign interviewees in World Order comprise an impressive and diverse selection of leaders in various domains, including American film director Oliver Stone, former National Security Council director for Russia under George W. Bush and current managing director at Kissinger Associates Thomas Graham, former IMF Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former president of Pakistan Perwez Musharraf, former French foreign minister and premier in 2005-07 Dominique Villepin, former president of Israel Shimon Perez, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and deputy leader of the Die Linke party in the German Bundestag Sahra Wagenknecht. These are the participants making substantial statements. Others, like UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, put in cameo appearances.
The remarks by and about Strauss-Kahn and Perwez Musharraf support the film’s charge that the USA plots against and destroys foreign leaders who dare to oppose America’s total control over global flows of money, goods and people. Wagenknecht, who is an outstanding and at times fiery orator, addresses the question of Germany’s subservience to American Diktats and its de facto circumscribed sovereignty. All of these testimonials play to Putin’s long-standing argument, reiterated in the film, that the West European allies of the USA are nothing more than vassals. She and others also support the Russian allegation that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) represent another area in which the USA is undermining the global institutions (WTO) so as to impose its will on all nations in violation of international law.
Finally, with regard to content, Vladimir Putin’s closing remarks about the place of nuclear arms in Russia’s military doctrine must not be played down. Saying aloud that Russia has not and will not brandish its nuclear truncheon, is, in effect doing just that. All of this is of one piece with the way Russia’s aerospace forces have conducted their attacks in Syria on the Islamic State and on the armed opposition to Assad these past two months. The use of heavy bombers flying from the Kola peninsula on 15,000 km missions with the help of night-time in-flight refueling; the use of cruise missiles fired from frigates in the Caspian Sea at distances of 1300 km to targets in Syria; and the use of cruise missiles launched from Russian submarines in the Mediterranean have all had a political dimension far exceeding military necessity in the Syrian theater: they demonstrate Russia’s capability of waging global war, including global nuclear war. These actions are also depicted in the film.
Is World Order propaganda? It most certainly is. Is it directed primarily at the Russian domestic audience, as the Telegraph newspaper insists? No. Like all of Putin’s foreign policy addresses, whether delivered abroad or at home, as in the Valdai Discussion Club, whether issued with subtitles in English or not, its primary audience is in Washington, D.C. with a secondary audience in Brussels. One may suppose that the purpose is not to touch off or accelerate an arms race but, on the contrary, to bring the other side to its senses and persuade it of 1) Russia’s seriousness about defending militarily what it sees as vital national interests and 2) its ability to deliver massive destruction to an enemy even in the face of a possible first nuclear strike, and so to reinstate the Mutually Assured Destruction deterrence that America’s global missile defense was supposed to cancel out.
As Euronews reported, in World Order Vladimir Putin lists several areas of common concern over which Russia is prepared to cooperate with the West. Indeed these very same prospective areas of cooperation come up repeatedly in the public writings and speeches of the relatively few ‘fighters for peace’ who are trying to draw the world community back from the brink into some kind of détente.
However, pulling that raisin out of cake is to seriously misunderstand the very clear dominant message coming out of Russia: that the destruction of world order by US-led ‘democracy promotion’ and spread of ‘universal values’ will not be tolerated and that Russia has set down certain red lines, such as against NATO expansion into Ukraine or Georgia over which it will fight to the death using all its resources. We ignore these messages at our peril.
As we enter the U.S. presidential electoral season and a vast number of foreign policy and military advisers are emerging to give counsel on relations with Russia, and other major powers, in the hope of securing for position themselves as advisers to the candidates in the hope of obtaining high posts in the next U.S. administration, it is worth looking again at the lessons of the summer and autumn of 2008, when what became the ‘reset’ policy was formulated through April 2009 when its content was published and its implementation began.
That initiative took shape the last time that the United States and Russia were on a course of confrontation leading straight to armed conflict. The context was the Russian-Georgian war and the deployment of U.S. naval forces off the coast of Abkhazia, poised to attack the nearby Russian ground forces. The imminent threat of war and the ongoing campaigning for presidential elections in November formed a nexus of circumstances not very dissimilar from where we are today when US and allied air forces compete for space in the skies above Syria with a substantial Russian force that includes fighters, bombers and the most advanced air-defense system in the Russian arsenal.
First among these key facts was the mobilization of America’s political and scientific elites to bring about a change in U.S. foreign policy that would take us back from the brink of war. Many of the Names which came into play then are once again being summoned by the fighters for peace to weigh in on the side of the angels. The problem is that those who had created the conventional wisdom about the role of the U.S. in the world were ill-prepared to go beyond tinkering at the edges of that wisdom, resulting in the failure of reset to go to the heart of the dispute with Russia and ultimately this led to many tears of regret all around.
The starting point of what became the ‘reset’ was the founding on 1 August 2008 of the Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Russia under the aegis of former Senators Chuck Hagel (Republican) and Gary Hart (Democrat), setting the bipartisan course of the initiative. It had as its backers The Nixon Center in Washington, a think tank whose Honorary Chairman was former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, a research center within the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Members included former U.S. ambassadors to the USSR or Russia James Collins, Jack Matlock and Thomas Pickering, former National Security Council or Defense Department officials and top business leaders, such as the former chairman of the world’s largest insurance company Maurice Greenberg. Among those who worked closely with the Commission either inside or outside were former Secretary of State George Schultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn.
Ultimately the Commission issued a 17-page report entitled ‘The Right Direction for U.S. Policy toward Russia’ which contained many of the points taken up in the papers outlining reset which President Obama’s delegation signed off with the Russians when they met in London on 1 April 2009 on the sidelines of the first summit meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
The centerpiece of ‘reset’ as defined in the state papers signed in London was renewal of the 1994 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (START) that was scheduled to expire in December 2009. It also called for organizing ‘contacts between our two governments in a more structured and regular way.’ And it went on to urge greater cooperation between societies: more cultural exchanges, student exchanges, scientific cooperation, cooperation between NGOs
A major reason for this failure was the timidity of those calling for a new policy on Russia. The report from the Commission assumed continuing U.S. hegemony in world affairs. It stood by the policy of continuing expansion of NATO membership, including to Ukraine and Georgia, and the only concession was to slow down the timetable. It called for continued roll-out of the global missile defense shield. While the authors urged ending U.S. restrictions on trade with Russia and its admission to the WTO, they nonetheless espoused the conventional wisdom on the dangers of Russia’s dominant position as energy supplier to Europe and came out in favor of building gas pipelines to Europe skirting Russian territory and thereby diversifying Europe’s energy supplies at Russia’s expense.
The overriding Russian concern for a new security architecture to be put in place in Europe that would bring them in from the cold received a sympathetic if noncommittal response from the Commission. The proposals in this regard put forward by President Medvedev in April 2008 should be formally reviewed, they said, but without any specific recommendations.
With respect to democracy promotion in Russia, the Commission members called for the volume of criticism of Russia to be turned down. They also called for a show of decency by Americans in their dealings with Russia.
Aside from the new strategic arms reduction treaty, Obama’s reset came to nought.
Today, if we are to escape from the cycle of ‘resets,’ from bitter disappointment over souring of relations after a few landmark fruits of cooperation, and the onset of new, heightened risks of nuclear war, we must seize the nettle and resolve the underlying problems of international relations that the Russian leadership insistently reminds us of, most recently in the documentary film World Order. Détente, i.e. relaxation of tensions and improved atmospherics, is only a good beginning, nothing more.
G. Doctorow is the European Coordinator, American Committee for East West Accord, Ltd. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015.