Vladimir Golstein was born in Moscow but moved to the United States in 1979 where he studies at Columbia and Yale Universities. He is a professor of Russian literature and film studies at Brown University. Professor Golstein has written articles on works of many nineteenth-and twentieth century Russian authors. Author of Lermontov's Narratives of Heroism published in 1998, Golstein has been widely published on Russian and U.S. foreign policy. In an exclusive interview with Khamenei.ir, Professor Vladimir Golstein taps on issued of US imperialist policies, the Ukrainian and Syrian crisis, Turkey as well as Brexit and its possible consequences for the world.
The following is the full text of the interview:
What’s beneath the hypocrisy of dividing terrorists to good and bad by US-NATO alliance?
There is a well-known American phrase allegedly told by one of State Department diplomats: “He is a moron, but he is our moron.” This “moron” approach to foreign policy continues to hold its sway all over the world, and US-NATO alliance in particular.
Thus, they went out of their way to present Ukrainian neo-nazis who orchestrated the seizure of power in Kiev as “the fighters for new democratic Ukraine” or “brave resisters of Putin aggression,” while simultaneously calling those courageous souls from Eastern Ukraine who resisted this illegal Ukrainian putsch and its goal of drastically re-orienting Ukrainian domestic and foreign policy, as “separatists, terrorists, or Putin army.”
Once the pattern of describing those who promote State Department petty games as “freedom fighters” and those who resist it as “terrorists” or “tyrant’s henchmen” - -once this pattern becomes clear, it is much easier to see through the hypocrisy of the US/NATO foreign policy. What lies beneath it, is the simple struggle for world domination, the simple desire to assert one’s power, while demonizing the countries that happen to resist.
While the western politicians and its mass media are temporarily enjoying their success in translating their own political or economic goals of world domination into the language that is easily understood and sold to the readers and voters, it is becoming increasingly apparent for more and more people that the western countries are not interested in promoting democracy, but rather in establishing the regimes that would help them maintain their economic and political dominance.
Will US interventionist Foreign Policy end anytime soon?
I suspect it will end once it encounters the strong resistance of the unified world. So far, US has succeeded in presenting countries that resist it, as rogue, delegitimized countries that can and should be bombed. And so far, they met very little resistance, which clearly bred more arrogance and recklessness.
I think it is the duty of BRIC countries, along with other power players in other regions, to make it clear to the United States, that no country knows all the truths, that the disputes have to be conducted through negotiations, that bullying other countries into submission is bound to produce very negative results in the long run.
As we all know, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” These wise words of Lord Acton should be written on every building in Washington, since it is clear that the absolute power that US has enjoyed after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been very detrimental both for the United States and the rest of the world. What I find encouraging is that the voters in US find the interventionist politics of Hillary Clinton less and less appealing. In other words, sane heads in the United States are becoming more and more aware that US is, if not the first, then the second victim, of these mindless interventions and assertions of power.
How can Russia, Iran, China and other major independent powers stop US warmongering throughout the world?
These countries might have various differences and points of contentions, but they all feel that multipolar world is the only condition for future development of our planet and its inhabitants. They have experienced again and again that unilateral dictates emanating from US, instead of solving problems, generates more and more of them.
So it is obviously in their interests, to get united on the issue of multi-polarity, and insist – through various institutions like US, or press, or even new military alliances – that the business as usual – is not going to be accepted and that there will be a price tag attached for US unilateral way of conducting business.
How the axis of resistance has foiled US plot for the future of the South West Asia?
I am sure that one powerful instrument of resisting US plots all over the world is through economics. Chinese “soft power” is the power to be reckoned with. It is important for the “axis of resistance” to counter US dominance not just on the military fields, but --more importantly-- in the economic, political, and intellectual arena. If US wants to get its way through money and bombs, through appealing to the worst in mankind, like fear or greed, the axis of resistance should appeal to the best: the spirit of collaboration, creativity, acceptance of differences, human camaraderie.
What made Turkish PM to finally apologize for shooting down the Russian jet? Is it safe to say the tide is turning over terrorists and their supporters?
Turkish PM, Erdogan, realized that in his authoritarian self-righteous ways he managed to create too many enemies for his own country all over the world. On some level, he can be seen as the emblem of the United States: his economic successes have given him the aura of invincibility, so he began to challenge both his immediate neighbors (like Syria or Russia) as well as the distant countries, like Germany or even USA for their support of Syrian Kurds.
He eventually realized, however, that not much could be accomplished when the rest of the world views you with hostility and suspicion, and that the only reason he is tolerated is because of the strategic geographical location of his country. Consequently, when the economic and political costs became clear to him, he went out of his way to re-establish good relationships with his neighbors, and traditional rivals, like Israel or Russia. Apparently, he also has been involved in negotiations with Syrian government and is willing to stop his support of various fighters, who challenge the Syrian regime. I hope he will stick to his pragmatic decision, and would not allow US/Nato axis to sabotage these necessary steps for achieving peace and prosperity in the region.
It does not mean that the tide against terrorism is turning. Terrorists will continue to play an important role in various proxy wars; they are the essential instruments of such wars. There is no indication that Saudi Arabia is willing to stop its support for various terrorist groups. In fact, they seem to be going on the offensive, as the instant response to Turkish attempts of reestablish diplomacy in the region have revealed. The terrorist attack on the Istanbul airport was a clear message from terrorists that they still enjoy a lot of support of a lot of countries who find the continuous conflict in the area beneficial for them.
What would be the possible effect of Brexit on the crisis in Syria?
Brexit is going to have a great effect all over the world, not just Syria. The message of the Brexit is clear: populations are getting tired of incompetent elites running or rather ruining economy, relations with other countries in their name. They fail to see any benefits from the way US, NATO and EU were running the world.
Consequently, we are entering the era of skepticism, the era when the old narratives don’t hold their power anymore, the era, when the governments will have to explain and justify their involvement in foreign wars. The era of foreign interventions, or least the era when such interventions were not questioned, appears to be over. Without financial and military support of various terrorist groups that are constantly challenging President Assad rule, it is clear that the President will re-assert his power, and will put an end to the Civil war that was tearing the country apart. Syrian people would have to find a political solution to their differences, rather than utilizing various geopolitical patrons from all over the world.
Comments