Related: see also "The lies Europe tells about Russia are monstrous" by Czech ex-president Klaus in The Spectator (where they called him – generously yet deeply pessimistically – the last outspoken leader in the West)There are folks in Czech politics who enjoy repeating the mindless Obama-style, and sometimes even Bandera-style if not Hitler-style, hateful proclamations against Russia and designing silly methods intended to harm Russia (which is often the goal even if they also harm themselves or their citizens or allies).
But I think that it is getting increasingly clear every day that the majority of the Czech political representatives do view Russia as a partner. It's true about President Zeman, Ex-president Klaus, PM Sobotka, the billionaire and deputy PM Babiš, and, we were just reminded by the Czech and Slovak media and by RIA, among others, former PM Nečas (2010-2013, see the picture).
Petr Nečas, a guy with a PhD in plasma physics, was the boss of ODS, the Klaus-founded conservative party (for decades after 1989, the main Czech right-wing party) that became much less conservative a decade ago when it diverged away from Klaus and that turned into a small party a year or two ago. I met him on Klaus' birthday party in June, he was smiling and was shaven, having reverted his temporary image from the times when he was harassed by some malicious and frivolous Czech investigators.
On a conference in Prague, Nečas would say
The sooner the escalation of hatred and hostility toward Russia ends, the better. I am confident that Russia is a strategic partner of the West in the short and long term.And Nečas, who is now a teacher of a sort (of trans-Atlantic political science), would add that it's much harder to deal with some problems in the world, e.g. in Africa and the Middle East, without Russia. He would also mention the very same argument that I often do – that Winston Churchill had to befriend Joseph Stalin (who was surely worse than Putin) to achieve certain things.
In August, Nečas would criticize the sanctions and the "stupid, myopic, and ahistorical diabolization" of Mr Putin when he's painted as another Hitler.
I was comparing some of the recent videos – e.g. the genuinely bitter, hateful, misleading, and often downright dishonest monologues by Barack Obama – with the situation just 8 years ago. For example, have a look at this 2006 video:
Bush was really a friend with Putin. He would say that they had a pretty good time when they discussed some leadership questions. Bush would say something about the export of his type of democracy abroad, e.g. to Iraq, and Russia was mentioned in the adjacent sentences. Maybe Bush has even explicitly said that he would like to clone the Iraqi organization of the society into Russia. This is, of course, comical because such an U.S.-organized "export of democracy" has always been a complete failure and we see where Iraq stands today.
Putin has of course used this bizarre combination of Bush's comments about the other countries and he would say that "Russia surely doesn't want to have the same democracy as Iraq". The journalists in the room laughed because in the context, the remark was precious. I think that in 2006, they must have understood that Russia had a superior organization of the society relatively to what the U.S. is trying to "export", and they were able to deduce some consequences out of this simple observation. There is a more general point in the remark: the double standards when it comes to the evaluation of democracy, human rights, and even abilities and the economic success in the U.S.
If someone licks the Americans' rectums, he immediately starts to get a good press even though he or his country is almost completely and entirely f*cked-up, to put it politely. So the members of the Congress applaud Mr Poroshenko as he praises himself and Ukraine as the cradle of progress. The fact that his country is in a much worse shape when it comes to democracy, corruption, economic output, and lots of other things than Russia doesn't seem to prevent anyone from criticizing and attacking Russia.
It's not just Ukraine. Saudi Arabia's human rights record is terrible, and also vastly worse than anything we can see in Russia, but we can't read any criticism of Saudi Arabia in the "mainstream" U.S. news outlets simply because Saudi Arabia seems to be more eager than Russia to lick the rectums of the powerful Americans.
More dramatically, anti-Assad pro-Islamic groups – and the ISIS was just one of about four groups that just managed to get more important than others – were supported by the U.S. as the "best guys" in Syria (much like Al Qaeda was supported by the U.S. in Afghanistan) just before the ISIS (as Al Qaeda 15 years earlier) became one of the greatest threats.
Yesterday, I originally didn't want to watch the particular episode of CrossTalk above because I couldn't imagine what new about the messy situation over there could be said. But the program was very good, thanks to the host, Ivan Eland, and especially Rachel Shabi who is an Iraqi Jewish expert in the Middle East affairs.
The U.S. don't have any plan what will happen "after the bombing of the ISIS". The main defect of the U.S. thinking is their implicit belief that one can "eliminate the ISIS by bombs". But the ISIS is primarily a vision, an ideology. You just can't eliminate an ideology by bombs. On the contrary, such an external attack may only strengthen the ideology.
Another way to generalize the observation is that the U.S. is often unable to see that the thinking that "we have to do something" often makes things worse, not better.
If we assume that the permanent wars and chaos (in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt etc. etc.) aren't really the very purpose of the U.S. policies, the American leaders seem utterly unable to invent plans for a sustainable arrangement in these countries. An aspect of this inability is that they're completely incapable of recognizing the actual "conditions on the ground" and the existing balance of the military and political power. It always looks like they are fighting wars in the vacuum – attempting to install a happy end from a Hollywood movie in a country whose history, traditions, dreams, and reality looks nothing like the beginning of the movie. The underlying defect of the American thinking is the same defect that makes it possible for feminism, black victimism, and similar cr*ppy ideologies to thrive in the U.S. – it's a complete divorce from the reality.
For example, it is very obvious from observations (as well as from theoretical derivations based on simpler, older observations) that the amount of good theoretical physics produced by females should be expected to be at least by one order of magnitude smaller than the output of men. It is a fact and there is absolutely nothing wrong about the fact. But the American interventionist/PC attitude is to identify facts – and laws of physics – as enemies and fight them. They want to replace facts with a vision that is prohibited by the laws of physics.
However, you just can't change the fact that in average, women are much weaker in theoretical physics than men (please, don't annoy me with Ms Laura's "black holes don't exist" claims that are all over the "mainstream" media – she should have been failed in her first course of GR if she were saying similar self-evidently flawed things) and despite Assad's flaws, all other powerful enough groups in Syria are worse than him and his fans. That's just how the Syrian reality works and denying the reality can't lead to anything good.
One may ask whether the motives why America is intervening in this increasingly failing way are ethical or unethical. Well, I guess that Americans usually don't do it to get some profit. After all, they are rich enough. They are arguably not doing these things to enslave others, either. But they are doing it for the (largely undeserved) feeling of moral superiority – and they seem to measure their moral superiority by the frequency with which someone licks their rectums. Sorry to inform you but:
A political group in country XY that is best at licking your rectum isn't necessarily the best group for the country XY or for the world.I am sure that many Americans will consider this negative statement to be a heresy. But it's a fact. The most decent guy in a country – or the guy who may bring the greatest improvements to his or her country – isn't necessarily the guy who worships you unconditionally. Face it: it may be someone who doesn't like you or at least someone who is ambiguous (and that's Putin's case) when it comes to his feelings about you.
For example, and there are tons of other examples, there is no political group worth mentioning in Syria (and many other countries) that would consider America as its role model. If you continue to be unable to notice and absorb this elementary fact, your interventions will continue to be inevitably counterproductive.