Nikolas Gvosdev, editor of The National Interest, takes down Reason magazine’s Cathy “”there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks” Young:
“How easily Americans play hard and fast with the truth. History is now being rewritten so that all semi-autocratic, dictatorial regimes in the region must now be ‘pro-Moscow. So Young writes, ‘Nongovernmental organizations were instrumental in bringing down authoritarian pro-Moscow regimes in Ukraine and Georgia.’ Kuchma and Shevardnadze were PRO-MOSCOW? That’s news to me. Shevardnadze was a constant thorn in Russia’s side, the one who brought U.S. forces into the country for the train and equip program, the one who constantly refused Russia’s demands to allow Russian forces to enter Georgian territory and who pushed hard for the complete removal of all Russian bases, an instrumental figure in getting the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline under way. Kuchma–let’s see, the one who helped to form GUUAM–the U.S. attempt to counterbalance Russian influence in the region, who sent troops to Iraq, who did his utmost to frustrate Russian attempts to create a Russian-dominated economic union. But no matter. It spoils the narrative, of pro-Russian autocrats and pro-American democrats.”
Ms. Young, yet another neocon masquerading as a “libertarian,” is outraged that the Russians are taking measures to ensure against a repeat of the U.S.-funded “color-coded” coups that were victorious in Ukraine and Georgia. She is particularly peeved that Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian oligarch whose Communist Party connections enabled him to loot entire industries, now finds himself in some legal difficulties. The great problem for Young and other would-be “democracy”-exporters, however, is that the Russian people don’t like the meddling of Western governments in their affairs, and are supportive of President Vladimir Putin, whom the neocons have targeted as their next “Hitler.” As Gvosdev puts it:
“The U.S. is running into what I call the ‘democracy paradox’ in a number of countries–what happens when those who share your vision are a real minority and couldn’t win at the ballot box? In the 1990s, we told our democratic reformers in Russia to ignore democracy and rule by decree. This is the conundrum we face in the Middle East, and increasingly will face in Latin America as well.”
As long as U.S. taxpayers are funding ostensibly “private” organizations like “Freedom House” and other do-gooder NGOs to further George W. Bush’s Trotskyite policy of worldwide “regime change,” we shouldn’t be surprised that the Russians and others are closing to the doors on our fingers. And it isn’t as if Putin is putting restrictions on Western NGOs without popular support, as Gvosdev points out:
“Some 59 percent of YOUNG Russians (e.g. those who came to maturity in the waning days of the USSR or in the post-Soviet period altogether) believe that foreign donors try to use their assistance to Russian NGOs to interfere in Russia’s domestic affairs, and a whopping 72 percent said foreigners should stop trying to impose their ideas on Russian society.
The main consequence of our neo-Jacobin foreign policy is not an upsurge of support for the U.S. and its crazed foreign policy that owes more to Trotsky than to the Founders, but what I have called the boomerang effect — and not just in Russia.