Table of Contents
When Joe Biden was propped up, à la Weekend at Bernie’s, and wheeled into the Oval Office, the media-political elite lit their cigars (or, in Hunter’s case, crack pipes) with hundred dollar bills supplied by Ukrainian energy companies, and heartily slapped each other on the backs. They’d done it. They’d saved democracy… if, by “democracy”, you mean a cosy game of Deep State musical chairs, where the only policy constant is keeping the people out and the money rolling in.
The only other constant, at least in foreign policy, is expediency. The same yattering skulls who are screaming at you that Vladimir Putin is literally Hitler! just loved ol’ Vlad, not so long ago. I’m not just talking about Hillary Clinton, gushing back in 2013 about how Putin was “an engaging and, you know, very interesting conversationalist”, and how the two of them bonded over talk of saving tigers and whales. “It was quite something,” she cooed.
But Hillary was far from the only Obama-era insider just head over heels with Putin’s Russia.
The New York Times — which, as history tells us, has always been the most reliable source of all news Russian — repeatedly praised the wonderful new era of American-Russian relations under Golden Boy Obama. “Many people [in Russia] were relieved by Mr. Obama’s election,” swooned the Times. “Russia’s leaders … could not say enough good things about President Obama.”
And Barack Obama returned the love, refusing to sanction Russia over the thirty-odd of its spies that were caught in America. Nor did Obama so much as ruffle his immaculate suit when Putin annexed the Crimea.
As for that awful Mitt Romney and his baseless anti-Russian paranoia, haw haw, what a hoot!
Displaying its standard acumen over Russia, the Times sneered that Romney showed, “either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics”. MSNBC joined in, finger-wagging the silly old Mormon that “Russia is not the greatest foreign policy challenge”. Rachel Maddow hooted at Romney for “threatening Russia”.
They were all, of course, just following the lead of their Golden Idol.
When Romney brought up the threat Russia posed, during the 2012 Presidential Debate, Obama smirked that “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back”. The honking seal pack of the media near wet themselves. Almost as much as they did when Obama wittily riposted Romney’s other foreign policy talking-point — that the downgrading of America’s Pacific fleet was creating an opening for aggressive Chinese expansion in that ocean.
Haw, haw, haw, doesn’t Romney look the fool, now?
But the media-Democrat love-in with Russia ended the instant the Bad Orange Man questioned the wisdom of expanding NATO into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. Cue, “Russian collusion!” Russia was suddenly the Evil Empire, all over again.
Every single one of Donald Trump’s Republican opponents jumped on the anti-Trump/anti-Russia bandwagon. Putin is a “gangster”, howled Little Marco. The Other Bush sneered that that’s just “not how the real world works”, while Carly Fiorina vowed to re-stage the prelude to Operation Barbarossa by staging missiles in Poland and thousands more troops in Germany.
Not to be outdone, as soon as they got over their howling fits of tears on election night, the Democrats thundered that the wicked Russians had stolen Hillary’s election (no matter that it was the Clinton campaign that was allegedly busily secretly colluding with Russian agents). You want proof of Russian collusion: Trump was against selling lethal weapons to Ukraine!
Y’know, just like Obama, Angela Merkel, and a raft of foreign policy mavens. Why, selling weapons to the Ukraine would make America, “a belligerent party in a proxy war with Russia, the only country on Earth that can destroy the United States. That’s why this is a big deal”. A droning chorus of chin-stroking “experts” concurred, the Times reminded their drooling readership.
Until Trump agreed.
Then, suddenly, not selling weapons to the Ukraine was proof positive that Trump was Putin’s Puppet.
It never occurred to the knuckle-dragging dimwits of the mainstream media — and certainly, the Washington Establishment isn’t about to remind them — that Putin strangely never took advantage of having his supposed puppet in the Oval Office by actually invading the Ukraine, or anything.
No, strangely enough — as Jen Psaki accidentally let slip — Putin has only ever acted when a Democrat is at the helm. Putin both annexed the Crimea and first invaded the Ukraine under Obama’s watch. Then he waited until Obama’s VP was propped up behind the Resolute desk
It was only when Dubya, for all his faults, and Trump, for all of his, were in the top job that Putin pulled his head in.
As Jen Psaki unwisely admitted, there is a pattern to Putin’s behaviour — and to the Washington Establishment’s.
See if you can spot it.
