The US Will Not Tolerate a Second Rule-Breaker

The new year marks a new phase of relations between Russia and the West. Between the media’s widespread coverage of the Litvinenko affair and recent corruption charges against Vladimir Putin, it is becoming clearer and clearer that these waves of information are not accidental.

While reports on the Litvinenko affair claim experts validated the charges, the BBC’s “investigations” and Adam Shubin’s statements smack of banal mass-market propaganda. It is not worth diving into an analysis of this issue, as all the details have already been combed through and over-analyzed many times.

The real question is, why now? The Western media has demonized Russia and Putin for a long time, but I can’t remember Western journalists (or should I say, politicians) ever trying to sway public opinion as vehemently as they are now.

The Americans themselves claim they have long known about Putin’s alleged corrupt activities, but for some reason, they quietly concealed them from the entire world, which only further confirms the involvement of political agendas.

In addition, it is clear the target audience of these media campaigns is not the Russian public – the incidents with the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea and the downed Boeing clearly demonstrated to the West that the Kremlin dominates in the domestic arena and that without domestic amplification by journalists within Russia, Western media are unable to influence the Russian public.

So, the key recipient of Western media is the Western audience. But the West is not monolithic, and so here, as they say, we’ve got options.

There are several reasons why our American colleagues are no longer excited about the development of the situation in Syria. First, the Americans have, yet again, involved themselves in a regional conflict rich with ideas about freedom and democracy.

We have already witnessed many scenarios like this one – it might seem like there is nothing new here. This conflict, however, is fundamentally different from all those that came before it. While in the past, the U.S. and Europe would act just as outside observers, the conflict in Syria has become a migration crisis for the European continent.

In this context, it looks completely reasonable to cast Putin as some sort of common enemy, who can take the blame for the consequences of the Syrian crisis. The notion the European Union is united around a common idea is increasingly shaky, and so it is entirely realistic to hold society together by creating an enemy.

It is clear this sort of plan cannot last forever, though, and so the European community is actively preparing for some real action.

Specifically, many experts are talking about the possibility of the Americans launching an operation in the Middle East, as a way to begin introducing troops into Syria and to displace Assad. But the prerequisite conditions necessary for such decisive action are not yet in place, so it’s hardly worth considering such a situation.

First of all, the U.S. is currently actively embroiled in the electoral process. While playing the “evil Putin” card has been useful for many candidates (both Democrats and Republicans), launching a new Iraq would be very dangerous, regardless of the level of legitimacy of the future U.S. president. Secondly, Russia has made it sufficiently clear she is determined to defend her interests in Syria, so becoming involved in the situation would simply be more trouble than it’s worth.

That said, it is nevertheless necessary to resolve the Syrian issue, so it is essential to weaken the opponent as much as possible. Russia, finding herself in international isolation after reuniting with Crimea, is taking serious steps toward the restoration of diplomatic relations with her Western counterparts.

The migration crisis is agitating the situation in the heart of the European Union and upsetting relations between the U.S. and the EU. In this context, the U.S.’s attempt to “burn bridges” between Russia and the EU is highly relevant.

And finally, the last undeniable reason lies in the very principle of modern international relations. For some time, the West has appealed to the same rulebook that guides the actions of all other players on the global stage. The advantage of these rules is that they create conditions under which you can predict the actions of all international political players several moves ahead.

U.S. dominance within this system hinges on the fact that American authorities sometimes violate the rules of the game (their God-given right, of course), and they do not intend to tolerate a second rule-breaker.

Interacting with Putin is simply inconvenient for them, since playing with an opponent who couldn’t care less about your rules is no fun, and, more to the point, it’s economically disadvantageous. So it is clear the manufacturing of accusations of murder and corruption against their opponent is a signal not for society at large, but only for those segments of the European elite, whose choices regarding those with whom they will collaborate and with whom they will not, fluctuate strategically.

The truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle, and for now, all we can do is speculate reasons. What are their objectives, or do they have an objective at all? This will become clear in the near future, and not just through the brazen rhetoric of officials and the attacks of journalists.