For 13 days, from the 16th to 18th of October, 1962, the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis took place. The United States and Soviet Union were on the verge of nuclear war that would obliterate millions of people. Both the US and the Soviets were susceptible to nuclear strikes on their homelands. The 13 days of immense fear of everyone on all sides was arguably the closest the US has ever been to nuclear war with the Soviets. By rational standards, the United States is nowhere near the position it was in during October, 1962 when nuclear war and the loss of many lives of US civilians was highly possible. However, rationality is a rare commodity in Washington. Currently, the Democratic Party establishment has demonstrated a clear and distinct willingness to attack the “other” (someone or something different than themselves) in order to suit their partisan interests. The most blatant example of attacks by the Democratic Party is the pro-war sentiment towards Russia that highlights the claim that Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin’s puppet.
Ever since the 2016 presidential election, the Democratic Party narrative has been to attack Russia whether it is warranted or not. A hysteria has surfaced due to alleged Russian interference in the election. Whether evidence has been provided or not, the Democrats perpetually continue to not only criticize Vladimir Putin, but to also initiate a fully pro-war, anti-Russia message. In July of 2017, a democratic consultant and “longtime advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton,” said on CNN that “We were and are under attack by a hostile foreign power, ... and ... we should be debating how many sanctions we should place on Russia or whether we should blow up the KGB, GSU, or GRU [Russia’s foreign intelligence agency].” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal called the alleged Russian interference an act of war along with former DNC chair Donna Brazile. So, we have one person saying that the US should blow up agencies of the Russian government, and two others declaring the present climate as one of war between the US and Russia. However, the belligerent statements only get more extreme. In October of 2017, Hillary Clinton described Russian interference as “Cyber 9/11.” That’s right, “Cyber 9/11;” she made the comparison of alleged interference to the gravest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Speaking of Pearl Harbor, in light of Mueller indicting 13 Russian nationals and groups, both Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler of New York and Philippe Reines, a long time aid of the Clintons, decried that the Russian meddling is the equivalent of Pearl Harbor. Such a comparison must mean that the 13 indictments exposed some of the worst crimes against the American people right? Well, the Russian Internet Research Agency, IRA, is “at the heart of the indictments” according to The Atlantic’s Krishnadev Calamur, and Adrian Chen, who profiled the IRA back in 2015 called the Russian efforts “essentially a social media marketing campaign” on Chris Hayes’ show on MSNBC. He later tweeted that he “tried to tamp down the troll farm panic on @chrislhayes show last night. It’s 90 people with a shaky grasp of English and a rudimentary understanding of U.S. politics sh[*]tposting on Facebook.” So, Nadler and Reines are comparing a troll farm, where its activity has not been shown to have an actual impact on the election, to Pearl Harbor. Let’s be clear, the charges brought forth by Mueller of criminal activity are not the dispute, it is the usage and interpretation of the indictments. Claiming that the activities of the IRA is equivalent to Pearl Harbor is extremely dangerous as it insinuates that Russia has committed acts of war against the United States which is factually false.
The anti-Russian sentiment and calls of war only adds to US belligerency on the global stage and increases tensions between the US and Russia. As of right now, Russia’s former buffer states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have joined NATO, an organization against Russia, and Ukraine (excluding Crimea) has fallen under Western influence. Russian defense is extremely weak due to its lack of buffer states and constant belligerency from the Democratic Party does not help. And, Democrats are calling for conflict due to cries of election interference when the United States is the master of interfering in other sovereign nations’ elections. Examples range from the coup of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh to toppling Chilean President Salvador Allende, and to granting financial assistance to RUSSIAN leader Boris Yeltsin during his election in 1996 which ironically lead to the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Additionally, the media has virtually teamed up with the Democrats in regards to Russian rhetoric. In addition to having guests on that make comparisons to Pearl Harbor, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow did a segment on the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to push forward a baseless conspiracy theory. Moreover, Maddow put up a graphic of names of Russians that were attending the GLOBAL Economic Forum in order to lead the audience into thinking Trump was going in order to meet with Russians. To put her segment into perspective, imagine if the names were Jewish and she was trying to show an Israeli-related conspiracy. Would that segment be anti semitic? Now, is the Russian segment xenophobic?
When the Democratic Party is laser-focused on demonizing Russia instead of policy matters such as healthcare, trade, and infrastructure, they are creating a hysteria with parallels to McCarthyism. Anyone who dares to counter the anti-Russian narrative by merely being skeptical of all the claims regarding Russian influence in 2016 and on Donald Trump, is labeled a Putin-puppet and does not appear on mainstream news. In addition, social-media accounts have been shut down and are regularly attacked by a plethora of others due to countering the anti-Russian narrative. And, a multitude of stories have been headlined in the mainstream media, only to be debunked shortly after such as claims that Russians hacked the US electricity grid and RT had taken over CSPAN.
The massive hysteria and perpetual fear of Russia perfectly highlights the Democrats non-objective partisan agenda. In 2012 Barack Obama, during a presidential debate against Mitt Romney, lambasted Romney for calling Russia a huge threat when he said, “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years,” yet when connecting Russia to Donald Trump, Democrats are ecstatic about presenting Russia as a enormous threat to the United States. However, the facts are that the Russian economy is considerably smaller than the economy of the United States, (December 2016: $1.283 trillion to $18.57 trillion), Russia is surrounded by NATO, and its military budget is a tiny fraction in comparison to that of the United States of America (~$46 billion to ~$716 billion). So where’s the ‘threat’?
The year is not 1962, and Russia does not have nuclear warheads pointed at the United States from nearby Cuba, yet the Democrats seem intent on acting as if the US is on the brink of destruction at the hands of Russia. However, 2018 is a time when global tensions are extremely high where the Trump administration is seemingly seeking to antagonize Kim Jong Un at every turn, Saudi Arabia is bombing and choking the life out of Yemen, Israeli-Palestinian relations are collapsing, the US continues its war in Afghanistan, NATO troops are lining the border of Russia, and Syria remains a perpetual war zone with a US presence, so it may not be the greatest idea to make the situation worse by ramping up a second Cold War.