If Venezuela becomes a Cuban Missile–like
Crisis, will Trump be free to resolve it peacefully?
Now in its third year,
Russiagate is the worst, most corrosive, and most fraudulent political scandal
in modern American history. It rests on two related core
allegations: that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an “attack on
American democracy” during the 2016 presidential campaign in order to put
Donald Trump in the White House, and that Trump and his associates willfully
colluded, or conspired, in this Kremlin “attack.” As I have argued from the
outset—see my regular commentaries posted at TheNation.com and my recent book War With Russia?—and as recently
confirmed, explicitly and tacitly, by special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s
report, there is no factual evidence for either allegation.
Nonetheless, these Russiagate
allegations, not “Putin’s Russia,” continue to inflict grave damage on
fundamental institutions of American democracy. They impugn the integrity of the presidency and now the
office of the attorney general. They degrade the many Democratic members of
Congress who persist in clinging to the allegations and thus the Democratic
Party and Congress. And they have enticed mainstream media into one of the worst episodes of journalistic malpractice in
modern times.
But equally alarming, Russiagate continues to endanger American
national security by depriving a US president, for the first time in the
nuclear age, of the diplomatic flexibility to deal with a Kremlin leader in
times of crisis. We were given a vivid example in July 2018, when Trump held a
summit with the current Kremlin occupant, as every president had done since
Dwight Eisenhower. For that conventional, even necessary, act of diplomacy,
Trump was widely accused of treasonous behavior, a charge that persists. Now we
have another alarming example of this reckless disregard for US national
security on the part of Russiagate zealots.
On
May 3, Trump called Putin. They discussed various issues, including the Mueller
report. (As before, Putin had to know if Trump was free to implement any acts
of security cooperation they might agree on. Indeed, the Russian policy elite
openly debates this question, many of its members having decided that Trump
cannot cooperate with Russia no matter his intentions.) A major subject of the
conversation was unavoidably the growing conflict over Venezuela, where
Washington and Moscow have long-standing economic and political interests.
Trump administration spokespeople have warned Moscow against interfering in
America’s neighborhood, ignoring, of course, Washington’s deep involvement for
years in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia. Kremlin
representatives, on the other hand, have warned Washington against violating
Venezuela’s sovereignty. Increasingly, there is talk, at least in Moscow policy
circles, of a Cuban Missile–like crisis, the closest the United States and
Russia (then Soviet Russia) ever came to nuclear war.
To
the extent, however remote, that Venezuela might grow into a Cuba-like
US-Russian military confrontation, would Trump be sufficiently free of
Russiagate allegations to resolve it peacefully, as President John Kennedy did
in 1962? Judging by mainstream media commentary on the May 3 phone
conversation, the answer seems to be no. Considering the mounting confrontation
in Venezuela, Trump was right, even obligated, to call Putin, but he got no
applause, only condemnation. To take some random examples:
§
Democratic Representative David Cicilline asked CNN’s Chris Cuomo rhetorically
on May 3, “Why does the president give the benefit of doubt to a person who
attacked our democracy?” while assailing Trump for not confronting Putin with
the Mueller report.
§ The
same evening, CNN’s Don Lemon editorialized on the phone call: “The president
of the United States had just a normal old call with his pal Vladimir Putin.
Didn’t tell him not to interfere in the election. Like he did in 2016, like he
did in 2018, like we know he is planning to do again in 2020…. You just don’t
seem to want us to know exactly what was said…. Nothing to see when the
president talks for more than an hour with the leader of an enemy nation. One
that has repeatedly attacked our democracy and will do so again.” (Lemon did
not say on what he based the expanded, serial charges against Putin and thus
against Trump or his allegation about the 2018 elections, which congressional
Democrats mostly won, or his foreknowledge about 2020 or generally and with
major ramifications why he branded Russia an “enemy nation.”)
§ We might expect something
more exalted from James Risen, once a critical-minded
investigative reporter, who found it suspicious that “Trump and Putin were both
eager to put the Mueller report behind them,” even for the sake of needed
diplomacy.
§ Senator Amy Klobuchar and
Representative Eric Swalwell, both candidates for the 2020 Democratic
presidential nomination, also expressed deep suspicion regarding the
Trump-Putin phone talk. Swalwell was sure it meant that Trump “acts on their
behalf,” that he “is putting the Russians’ interests ahead of the United
States’ interests.” (Voters may wonder if these candidates and quite a few
others who continue to promote extremist Russiagate allegations are emerging
American statesmen.)
§ Not surprisingly, a Washington Post opinion
writer argued that the phone call meant “Trump is counting on
Russian help to get reelected.”
None of these “opinion
leaders” mentioned the danger of a US-Russian military confrontation over
Venezuela or elsewhere on the several fraught fronts of the new Cold War.
Indeed, retired admiral James Stavridis, once supreme allied commander of NATO
forces and formerly associated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, all but proposed war on Russia in
retaliation for its “attack on our democracy,” including “unprecedented
measures” such as cyberattacks.
Russiagate’s unproven allegations are an aggressive malignancy
spreading through America’s politics to the most vital areas of national
security policy. A full nonpartisan investigation into their origins is urgently
needed, but US intelligence agencies were almost certainly present at their
creation, which is why I have long argued that Russiagate is actually Intelgate.
If so, James Comey, then FBI director, was present at the creation, though
initially in a lesser role than were President Barack Obama’s CIA Director John
Brennan and intelligence overlord James Clapper.
Comey recently deplored
Attorney General William Barr’s declaration that US intelligence agencies
resorted to “spying” on the Trump campaign. (In fact, Barr mischaracterized what
happened: The agencies, first and foremost Brennan’s CIA, it seems, ran an
entrapment operation against members of the campaign.) Comey warned Barr that he will discover
that Trump “has eaten your soul.”
It would be more accurate to say—and
certainly more important—that baseless Russiagate allegations are eating
America’s national security.
Reprinted with the author’s
permission.
Stephen
F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University. His new book is War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump &
Russiagate.
Copyright © 2019 Stephen F. Cohen
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/05/stephen-f-cohen/russiagate-zealotry-continues-to-endanger-american-national-security/
