Ianus: Russia and China Have Never Been Friends of America OR the Western Democracies. ... Who has been then ?

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Feb 4, 2007 at 12:06

Dear LMcCarten,

First let me remark that I am America's friend and wish it all the best. If I criticize it it is not because of my malice and rancor. I openly detest Islam and will spare no toil to stigmatize it (not just some "extreme Islam" as Dr Pipes is so fond of reiterating in his defence of Islam's intrinsic innocence) . However I can't shut my eyes on some relevant points which are less flattering to America or the Western Democracies.

As to the title of your comment "Russia and China Have Never Been Friends of America OR the Western Democracies" , I wonder : if it is so , then why Roosevelt himself established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union as soon as he came to power in 1933 , that is to say at the time when the Stalin terror was engulfing the Russian peasantry making a class of slaves of them ? What sort of relations existed between Stalin's Russia and the Western Powers between 1941-1945 if not 1949? if they were not friends , who were they ? Or was the US and Britain waging a lonely war and thus justifying today's widely repeated myth that it was America that defeated Nazism ? Starting from the 1970-ies with Brezhnev's detente policy the relations were far from being hostile again. And during the Gorbachov years I - and I think many Russians - truly believed the US and the USSR were friends. This turned out of course to be an grim illusion and I can't blame Gorbachov for that.

As to China what was Nixon doing in China in 1972 if not looking for China's agreement to enter a coalition against the Soviet Union ? Do you make a coalition with an enemy ?

Generally, given the erratic character of Western diplomatic history I could ask what sort of friends America and the Western Democracies have ever had ? Turkey ? So keenly and generously supported and equipped by the Americans so as to be able to crush and expell half the Greek population in Cyprus in 1974 and organize its pogroms in Constantinople in 1955 ? Saudi Arabia with smiling and spineless princes praising the US and thick-bearded scholars spreading hatred against the US every Friday in every mosque ?

> And Russia is not a friend of its former territories,

In view of what rabid nationalistic forces came to power under America's or the EU's protection I am not surprised to hear that. In Georgia there was a bloody civil war and several wars with the neighbouring republics (South Osetia, Abkhasia ) and a criminal regime which spared no one , not even Shevarnadze. As long as the Russians stood there all these forces had little chance to prosper .

> in addition to not being a friend of the United States.

Do you imply the United States was a friend of Russia ? What did it do to help Gorbachov ? Its overt aim was the break-up of the Soviet Union whatever the costs involved. I wonder what you feel like now if it had been not the USSR but the US that had been disrupted in 1991 falling apart in 50 warring states and the Russians were now sending their military missions and establishing bases in New Mexico and California and blaming on the d...Reagan adminstration ? Yes, they could even quote the fact that Alaska was originally a Russian territory.

> Thus when the US gave military to Caucasua nations it was because Russia would NOT do so on terms that Caucasus nations found agreeable.

"Found agreeable" ? E.g. Russia would never acquiesce in the opressive measures taken by almost all those post-Soviet "freedom-loving" regimes against the Russian minority. he Russians were blamed for all things and those civilians were easy and defenceless scape-goats. This was however nothing America or the Western Democracies care about. The strategic aims dictated the policy.

> So if Russia finds US military support to these nations unpalatable it needs to face up to the reality that this is a result of its own policies and patronizing attitudes towards these countries.

Which is a different way of saying that America again is true to its traditional altruistic political mission ? Come on! You know that the problem was of how to secure the Baku oil and not Russian "patronizing attitudes towards these countries"! Georgia is to serve as the final port of the Pipeline that goes from Aserbaijan.

> Armenia and Georgia both face serious problems with militant Islamic insurgency, if they cannot get reliable assistance from Russia without strings attached to it they as sovereign nations have the right to look elsewhere--and have.

There are no "strings attached" to the American generosity , are there ?

> An anti-American coalition that you mention as a future possiblity in fact ALREADY exists: Russia and China BOTH signed an anti-American treaty in 1989, in which the United States was cited as a mutual enemy and both countries immediately began drawing up policies to undermine the United States militarily and economically. They continue to work diligently on this strategic goal to this day.

1989 ? It was the time when the Islam-American coalition forced the humiliated Red Army to abandon Afghanistan , to name one symptomatic event from that historical year. The Beijing uprising is another event of paramount importance to China.

That China doesn't want to share the Soviet Union's fate is quite understandable. American triumph and excessive joy over communism's demise in Europe made China - a communist country- very cautious and distrustful. It knows that it's now her turn to go to hell in accordance with the US wishes.

> Your comments to the effect that Americans are estranging and antagonizing are thus fiction;

I wish they were. Show me a few examples , however, where you see sincere American initiatives to regain Russia or China for the cause of the Western civilization ?

> Americans and members of other western democracies are clearly being victimized: Russia and China are staging a bald-faced global power play and they have long been making use of Islamic terror as a tool to obtain the global power they crave. )

As far as I can understand , the Russians are using exactly the same dreadful weapon that the Americans were using to defeat the Soviet Union. Had it not been American weapons ("stingers") and financial and ideological support the Red Army would have wiped out all those savage mukhajeens both from within Afghanistan and from all other Moslem countries. America allied itself to this "friend" to bring down the Soviet power. It succeeded with quite unexpected consequences. Now as the conflict is between America and Islam you're complaining that the former losers of America's policy have taken recourse to the very same double-edge weapon of Islam ?

> See Clair Sterling's non-fiction book "The Terror Network: The Secret War of International Terror"). Gordon Chang recently wrote that China fully intends to deploy nuclear first-strikes on America n territory to solidify its political aims; however, a Chinese military official two years ago was quoted as saying China would be destroying hundreds of American cities with nuclear weapons thereby erasing doubts about China's intentions.

To be sure as I have no access to the secret Chinese documents, I can't say if these threats are real or just part of official propoganda for internal or external consumption which all countries do on a daily basis . In any case I can't see the Chinese as nuclear suicide bombers. Their civilization is a few thousands years old and they would hardly expose it to a sudden extinction. What should they gain in exchange ? They believe in no paradise with 72 virgins for each communist . They know time is on their side .

> As for India, it is doubful it will be participating in any islamic coalitions against America or anyone else. For the simple reason that islam has been a proverbial sword in its side for over one thousand years. Buddhism no longer in its birthplace for the simple reason that Muslim invaders obliterated it from the subcontinent; Hindus in India have fared little better with over 80 million Hindus murdered ver the centuries of Islam-perpetrated wars.

OK. You may be right here. However , I just wonder why should they support the US in this conflict if it is known that it is exactly the US that staunchly protects India's worst enemy - Pakistan ?

> I doubt India (a desire) has any interest at all in seeing ideological dictatorships like China and Russia in the seat of global power or finding itself politically beholden to the Middle East which has been India's enemy for over 1000 years. India furthermore is experiencing a renaissance of Judeo-Christianity (which had been going on in India during the seventh century AD but was cut short by Islamic invasions). As Indians come to place value on human life over ideology it is increasingly unlikely that india will line up against the western democracies with ideological states to which human life has never meant squat.

I agree. Hopefully you are right.

> The current situation, whatever the outcome, is NOT the doing of the United States.

Sure , America is just one actor. There are others too.

> China, Russia, and Islam are hell-bent on global dominance.

I am sure Islam is bent on global supremacy. I am also sure that neither Russia (an Orthodox state ) nor atheistic China are unaware of that obvious fact . Russia has nothing good to expect from Islam thinking of Russia's bellicose anti-Islamic past , Chechnya , growing Moslem population, Saudi-sponsored wahhabism on the rise etc. ) . Moslems will never forgive the Chinese communists what they did in Eastern Turkestan de-Islamizing and Sinizing by raw force that huge once exclusively Islamic province .

My question to you is how can such contradictory forces get united if the US is really interested to fight the spectre that is currenlt threatening America ? And why has the US - to the best to my knowledge - done nothing to reverse or thwart this coalition ?

What I see instead is that the US is further involved in its mad pro-Islamic policy on the Balcans (Bosnia and Kosovo ) and the Near East . Its propaganda "Islam is a great religion" makes me sick . Its Saudi-bought politicians and opinion-leaders make me lose any faith in the US.

> This would have been the case even if the United States was not a global power. But one thing is clear: neither China, Russia, nor Islam make for trustworthy alliances.

Diplomatic history teaches that in principle there are no trustworthy alliances at all.

> And at t least this is dubious distinction is generally much less applicable to the United States and the western democracies.

Even these countries had no scruples to make friends with Stalin , Mao or anything as long as it served their political convenience. (This is a value-free statement .)

My point put in short is this : To defeat Nazism the West used communism . To defeat communism it used Islam. Now it seems isolated in its confrontation with Islam and instead of getting whatever support it's possible to get , it estranges any potential allies. Nay , it treats Islam ( redefined as "moderate" Islam) as a friend. This perverse policy forebodes a disaster for the West , in my opinion. I hope I am wrong.

With all the best

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".