American aggression

Here at REL we are "Neither Washington nor Moscow" as the old SWP rag used to have it. Funnily enough, after the geo-political earthquake of the last month centred in Georgia, that slogan has more resonance now than it ever had.

After the Georgian rout, is there another arms race emerging from the ruins? Well, the Russian action in the Caucauses has to be seen against in the context of increased American military dominance in the rest of the world. It is easy to play the anti-American card at this point. But a country's foreign policy is distinct from the country and people itself. After all, one can think Bush is doing a fantastic job yet be prejudiced against Americans. For the record, I am the obverse of this position.

Thus the article by Mike Whitney struck me as being fair enough . It's a little too sympathetic to Putin at times but the US push into Eastyern Europe is a provocative move to which the Russians will be forced to respond to. The American explanation that the missile defence system (if it works which is doubtful) is to protect Europe against Iranian launched missiles is not meant to be taken seriously, of course. But a nuclear system that allows the US to obliterate Russia under a new international relation theory called 'compellence' cannot but provoke international instability and even outright conflict.

After the Georgian defeat, Bush one might have thought, would have approached things differently and toned things down. But he and his apparatchicks and his opinion formers are having none of it and keep up their aggressive bluster.

All it does is to make that criminal gangster Putin look good.