Death of a Myth

Source: The American Conservative.

I have been making many of the same points as the writer for a long time now. He does it better.

A taste:

As we witness the collapse of various mainstream narratives, especially those surrounding the U.S./NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, Americans should begin to reassess their understanding of U.S. national leadership. Most American citizens have no notion of the great disparity between what their government does overseas and the stories they hear from its mouthpieces. As a result, Americans unwittingly support all sorts of foreign operations with little or no understanding of what is actually going on. For years, they have been misled by a non-stop propaganda campaign that is only now beginning to crumble.

We are experiencing the death throes of the United States’ unipolar hegemony over large parts of world. Until citizens begin to realize the magnitude of their government’s policy deceptions, it will become increasingly difficult to understand the United States’ changing global position and adjust to the effects of the growing negative perception of our country held by many people around the world.

The TV series Star Trek popularized a concept called The Prime Directive. I believe that would make a good starting point for re-imagining America’s role in world affairs.

10 thoughts on “Death of a Myth

    1. Remember the fine response to the anti-movements during the sixties. There were few “pretending not to notice”. Lots of violence, Canada trips, etc.

      And Iraq. Even the NYT supported the invasion and later admitted it was wrong. But any opposition and the person or group was politically tarred and feathered.

      Goering said it best about going to war:

      “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

      Which, incidentally is the technique Putin is using for his own people.

      I wonder who the real Nazi is now?

      Liked by 2 people

  1. …”especially those surrounding the U.S./NATO war with Russia in Ukraine”

    That statement alone tells me the remainder of the piece is strictly confirmation bias for your own beliefs.

    It is also factually inaccurate. There are NO US or NATO troops on the ground. US and NATO countries are supporting the efforts of n invaded neighbor who is a bulwark against Russian imperial advances. And NONE of it would have been necessary of Putin kept his forces out of Ukraine, both in 2014 and again last February.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “There are NO US or NATO troops on the ground.”

      None in U.S. or Nato uniform, but it is widely known that U.S. and Nato personnel are supporting Ukraine on the battlefield.

      RE: “And NONE of it would have been necessary of Putin kept his forces out of Ukraine, both in 2014 and again last February.”

      So what? Do you think that trivial virtue signalling changes anything?


  2. Please explain one thing to me. Some writers casually dismiss our obligation to help Ukraine. But I understood that we had a treaty with Ukraine, based on their giving up nuclear weapons because we promised to defend them. Therefore they gave up nuclear weapons, the Russians attacked them, and we didn’t defend them. (I don’t think a great nation can abandon people so casually, as we did in Afghanistan recently. To do anything similar again would be self-destructive.)


    1. RE: “But I understood that we had a treaty with Ukraine, based on their giving up nuclear weapons because we promised to defend them.”

      You may be referring to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances — actually three memorandums — to which Russia, the UK and the U.S. were signatories.

      “The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.” (Wikipedia)

      Belarus accused the U.S. of violating the agreements in 2013. Russia violated the agreements in 2014. And since then there seems little consensus that they have any application.

      I think the U.S. has an obligation to help Ukraine, but the best approach is to help end the war.


        1. Point is, Ukraine gave up the nukes and made itself weaker because they trusted us. I think we betrayed them, didn’t we? And that’s why the war started. And why we have an obligation to be part of a successful conclusion.

          Furthermore, if the Russians can be said to have won in any sense, they will continue to be the bullies they have always been. The world will be better off if the Russians are chastened into being civilized.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s