Previously, Part 6, I stated that weakening, cancelling Russia’s presence in the world, planning to partition it, or even destroying it has been a fixed U.S. objective. I also stated that U.S. anti-Russian hostility predates the events in Ukraine by decades. For that purpose, I gave two examples out of four. The following are the other two.

Example 3: Under the headline: Revelations from the Russian Archives, The Library of Congress outlines U.S. stance toward Russia in clear terms. I’m citing here two consecutive paragraphs.

Paragraph A: “The United States government was initially hostile to the Soviet leaders for taking Russia out of World War I and was opposed to a state ideologically based on communism … The totalitarian nature of Joseph Stalin’s regime presented an insurmountable obstacle to friendly relations with the West. Although World War II brought the two countries into alliance, based on the common aim of defeating Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union’s aggressive, antidemocratic policy toward Eastern Europe had created tensions even before the war ended.”

Comment: If one wants to analyze U.S. motives for persistent enmity toward Russia without recourse to tiring research, paragraph “A”could provide invaluable insight.

1. The phrase “Taking Russia out of WWI …” This is true. Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, took Russia out of that war because he did not want Russians to die for internecine capitalistic wars and colonialistic rivalry. He stressed his views in Imperialism, The highest Stage of Capitalism published during the war.

Further, Russia’s withdrawal from that war was a sovereign decision—considering its colonialist motives, and coupled with the discovery of the Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France to divide among them the Arab land in Western Asia. Was that withdrawal the true cause for the U.S. hostility toward Russia as stated? No. Most likely, U.S. resentment of Russia was due to the missed hope that a protracted war with Germany and the Ottoman Empire may lead to the collapse of Russia and the newly established Communist system.

1. The phrase, “Totalitarian Nature of Joseph Stalin’s Regime, etc.”: The writers of the “revelations” appear to be claiming that aside from opposing Communism, the U.S. also opposed Stalin’s “totalitarianism”. The argument is: preposterous, irrelevant, justificatory, and insidious.

• It is preposterous because, ideally, no nation is entitled to preach, demand, or impose any form of government on other nations. For example, in the British settlers’ experience in what is now the United States, Britain had to bow to the will of George Washington and his lieutenants to form a republic thus detaching the aspired-for state from the British monarchy. During those times, did Spain, for example, intervene to abort the new republic because had reservations about it? Equally, then and now, the United States has no right to tell Russians how to choose their political system. Invariably, political systems are determined by historical circumstances and national events pertinent to each nation—except when imperialist forces impose them as it happened in Iraq consequent to the U.S.-British invasion.
• It is irrelevant because the nature of Stalin’s government was in relation to his application of the Marxian theory of socialism through the “dictatorship of the proletariat” paradigm—not in relation to how the United States thinks of Marxism and Russia. Regardless of how one thinks of this paradigm, the fact is, this is how the forces of history work—by waves, currents, tumults, and uprisings; by philosophical, social, and political theories; and by dynamic social changes in all forms including revolutions.
• It is justificatory: the United States was not opposing Russia under the premise that Communism posed a mortal danger to the U.S. capitalistic system. (If the foundations of capitalism are that strong, why the fear for their failure?) From the start, that opposition had a factual origin. With a huge landmass, diverse but cooperative nationalities, and bountiful natural resources, the Soviet model of equality among the constituent socialist states posed potential challenge to the U.S. imperialist model of domination.

Further, the U.S. never proved that the USSR of Stalin was a threat to the United States. It is a well-known fact that prior to WWII, Stalin’s focus was set on one exclusive target: Socialism in one country—the Soviet Union. He knew that the West would not sit idle while seeing a socialist experiment (the collective ownership of means of production) unfolding. Knowing the perils of possible wars because of it, Stalin had no interest in expanding his socialist model beyond Russia. He even ferociously fought Leon Trotsky who was advocating Permanent Revolutions across the world.

• It is insidious because it wants to spread the notion that the United States is the sole authority in charge of how the world must function.

To close, Stalin neither urged the United States to convert to Communism nor proposed military action to force it upon any other country. However, with WWII knocking on all doors, and seeing the U.S.’s continuing hostility (the U.S. recognized the USSR in 1933—16 years after the Communist revolution) the formation of the Socialist bloc at the end of war can be seen as response to defend the USSR from Western adventurism and declared intent to attack it—Churchill’s was an example.

In all cases, being a major world power does not qualify the United States to impose on Russia any form of government or to fight Communism just because (a) it is antithetical to Capitalism and its notions of private property, and (b) it did not fit its world agenda. (Note: discussing the speculative concept of totalitarianism (coined by the anti-Communist and anti-Russian Hanna Arendt) goes beyond the scope of this work.)

Of special interest: why did the United States feel compelled to oppose totalitarianism but not Europe’s dehumanizing colonialism? As for its own colonialism and imperialism, the United States purposely does not see itself in that way.

Another argument: U.S. unipolarity in world relations, as well as its oversized pressure on all nations resisting subjugation is a form of totalitarianism—the same concept they purport to oppose. Without a doubt, the accusation of totalitarianism (selectively applied to others) is a ruse to justify adversarial political decisions versus the accused.

• The phrase, “The Soviet Union’s Aggressive, Antidemocratic Policy”: I discussed the notion of “democracy” as defined by the United States in the upcoming parts. As for the claim of “Soviet aggressive policy”, this is worn projection psychology. Even if the Soviet Union was aggressive, its aggressiveness pales by comparison with that of the Union States. For one, the Soviet Union did not exterminate the population of its republics. But the United States nearly exterminated all Original Peoples to make space for European settlers.

To close, accusing others of aggressions and aggressive behavior while dismissing own aggression and aggressive behavior is a tactic that the United States has been practicing since foundation.  It does not matter whether people point to that fact or not. What matters for U.S. ruling circles is the continuation of the practice as a tradition, and as a means for public relations.

Paragraph B: “Beginning in the early 1970s, the Soviet regime proclaimed a policy of détente and sought increased economic cooperation and disarmament negotiations with the West. However, the Soviet stance on human rights and its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 created new tensions between the two countries. These tensions continued to exist until the dramatic democratic changes of 1989–91 led to the collapse during this past year of the Communist system and opened the way for an unprecedented new friendship between the United States and Russia, as well as the other new nations of the former Soviet Union.”

Comment

• The United States, the primary violator of human rights around the world, is not qualified to speak of human rights—it is like a criminal and a thief who insists to give solemn sermons against crime and theft. Besides, the proverbial crocodile tears shed on the question of human rights as violated by Russia could never cover up U.S. criminal conduct around the world—the ongoing U.S.-Israeli genocidal war on Gaza is a case in point.
• Claiming that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan created “new tensions between the two countries” is so preposterous that one cannot help but recalling U.S. voluminous history of invasions and interventions. Playing the virtuous preacher has been constantly a game that the U.S. could never master because of its venality and the ease with which it can be seen. The following limited references can corroborate my charge: (1) A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions From Vietnam To the Balkans; (2) Foreign interventions by the United States; (3) S. Launched 251 Military Interventions Since 1991, and 469 since 1798.
• Legions of American politicians, ideologues, think tanks, writers, media owners, and smattering opinion makers have joined in the relentless campaign to vilify and oppose Russia. When the USSR was alive and kicking, the pretext was Communism. When Russia became capitalist, the pretext was authoritarianism. This strongly suggests that America’s former anti-Communist policy was no more than a ploy to (a) weaken and destabilize Russia, and (b) establish the United States as an arbiter of its fate.

Example 4: is there an origin to U.S. hostile attitudes toward Russia in post -WII environment? Yes. It is called McCarthyism. McCarthyism, in its vast anti-communist ideological and psychotic contexts, has been invariably understood by U.S. imperialists and public alike as being anti-Russian—is the matrix to U.S. official enmity toward Russia.

Joseph McCarthy’s campaign against intellectuals, artists, writers, actors, and politicians is known. His role in creating stable anti-Russian hysteria and policies could never be overlooked for two reasons. First, from his time through present, his anti-Communist campaign (anti-Russian by association) and the ideology behind it kept reincarnating in different ways through countless personalities. Second, he left deep marks on U.S. political attitudes in the context of international and Russian relations. (Writing for Middle Tennessee State University under the headline: “The First Amendment Encyclopedia: McCarthyism,” Marc G. Pufong gives an incisive review of Joseph McCarthy and his American world)

Before everything, McCarthy, as a politician, is a product of U.S. ideologized imperialism. Meaning, whatever that system represents in terms of political cultural, party line, government policy, and worldview are necessarily imbued in him. Proving this, the Senate website published an article on McCarthy dated June 9, 1954. The opening paragraph is quite telling. It states,

“Wisconsin Republican senator Joseph R. McCarthy rocketed to public attention in 1950 with his allegations that hundreds of Communists had infiltrated the State Department and other federal agencies. These charges struck a particularly responsive note at a time of deepening national anxiety about the spread of world communism.” [Italics added].

The meaning is self-evident: the system has already created an atmosphere of “of deepening national anxiety about the spread of world communism”. All what McCarthy had to do was to dip into that anxiety and amplify what the system wanted him to do. In essence, he played according to preset rules including the anti-Russian rule. As such, he was (a) the leading promotor for building the future American hostility toward Russia, and (b) the ideological progenitor to countless clones who followed his example without mentioning his ideological influence.

The point: high profiles anti-Russian figures—without McCarthy’s theatrics and hearings—across U.S. political spectrum, followed the basic ideological stance of McCarthy vs. Russia. Examples: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Henry Jackson, Barry Goldwater, Paul Nitze, Alfonse D’Amato, Ronald Reagan, Harold Brown, Madelaine Albright, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Nikki Haley, Victoria Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan and Robert’s brother Frederick, Antony Blinken, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and countless others.

Discussion: I maintain that U.S. foreign policy conduct vis-à-vis Russia never recovered from Kennanism and McCarthyism. Both currents had origins in and found inspirations in Woodrow Wilson’s stance on Russia after the October Revolution and his intervention on the side of forces fighting Communism. Proving this are the multiple ideologies copied from Wilson—Nixon-ism is the highest example. With his many hyper-imperialist books, Nixon, the mass destroyer of Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos set the tones on how to hate Russia while appearing “normal”, “cool”, and “knowledgeable”.

In the end, American anti-Russian currents inserted themselves deep inside the American political culture, pop culture, policymaking, and legislation. The anti-Russia plan moved along two axes. The first owes its existence to the original thinking patterns of empire. That is, the United States would do anything to assert itself as a world power that accepts no challenges. The second is McCarthyism, Kennanism, and all their derivations. By dint of this configuration, all traits, principles, and paradigms of acute ideological determinism related to Russia embedded in those currents have become the distinguishing marks and modus operandi of the United States.

From February 2022 (the day in which Russia intervened in Ukraine) forward, McCarthyism and Kennanism (with the added benefits of Nulandism, Bidensim, Blinkenism, Schumerism, and Grahamism) came out of their momentary hibernation after Gorbachev and associates dismantled the Soviet Union. The nouveau McCarthysts and Kennanists intimidate that if you do not side with the U.S. against Russia, then you are siding with Russia— and that would make of you a Putin-loving anti-American.  Lindsay Graham has recently applied his brand of McCarthyism to his own party. Zero Hedge reports that Graham suggests. “If Conservatives Want Border Security They Will Have To Support Funding For Ukraine”. This reminds us of fascist Israel: either you support the Zionist settler state in killing the Palestinians and annex their lands, or you are “anti-semitic”.

To close, turning Russia into an enemy because of its intervention in Ukraine was never spontaneous or empathic. In his article, “McCarthyism Re‐​Emerging Stronger than Ever in Ukraine Policy Debates,” Ted Galen Carpenter, a former senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute (no lover of Russia), summarized the revival of McCarthyism as a political discourse vis-à-vis Russia as follows:

“A troubling pattern has developed over the decades in which foreign policy hawks smear their opponents and thereby seek to foreclose discussion of questionable U.S. policy initiatives…. Zealous anti‐​Russia voices are actually demanding that anyone opposing their views be silenced, and even criminally prosecuted.

In reviewing the history, aims, and details of U.S. foreign policy since WWI, it would not take long to conclude that self-serving rationalizations are effectively driving its world policy aiming at subduing or vanquishing any country out of U.S. control. Now that Russia has been re-baptized as America’s perennial enemy, how did all this start? A quick glance at the origin and successive stages of the United States can tell many things about current U.S. global posture and operational mentality. Early signs marking the U.S. forming character includes:

• George Washington’s vision to expand the boundaries of his 13 colonies,
• Slave owner Thomas Jefferson’s belief in the doctrine of discovery,
• The near extermination of the Original Peoples, black and native slavery, violent colonialist expansions,
• Manifest Destiny,
• Monroe Doctrine,
• Andrew Jackson wars against the Original Peoples and his Indian Removal Act (compare with the fascist Israeli plan to remove the Palestinians from Gaza).
• James Polk’s doctrine,
• Wars with Mexico and Spain,
• McKinley’s annexation of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico,
• William Walker’s push into Nicaragua and becoming its president,
• Annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Island,
• S. control of the Panama Canal Zone, and
• Supremacism as a tool of domestic and foreign policies,

With each stage of the U.S. development as a state, the quest for an expanded empire and world domination has developed its self-perpetuating mechanisms. Meaning, whoever aspires to become a member of U.S. ruling establishment, must adopt them and defend their objectives. For instance, one cannot run for an elective office on any platform that is antagonistic to the doctrines of the dominant politico-ideological structures of the American state.

In defense of this assertion, consider the following question. Do you know of any candidate who ran and won on a platform calling for (a) ending U.S. military interventions, (b) ending U.S. control of the United Nations, and (c) ridding the United States from the policies and ideologies that underpin its world policy—specifically imperialism and Zionism?

For the record, in the immensely grim, Zionist-controlled American political landscape, courageous and principled politicians showed their moral sinews, stood against the imperialist system, and even sought to bring it to justice. I’m referring to former Representative and presidential candidate Denis Kucinich. Kucinich tried and failed to impeach George W. Bush for his crimes in Iraq (House Resolution: 258). Sixteen years later, could any Congress member today dare to challenge the Biden regime’s actions in Ukraine, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen?

Thoroughout this article, I repeatedly used the term “doctrine”. Do doctrines have any relevance in the building of ideological attitudes, foreign policy culture, and political decision-making? How doctrines work in relation to the U.S. posture in Ukraine?