The straight-out answer to that question is: hawks preying on doves in Washington D.C. As a matter of fact, not just doves; but, those moderate or slightly shy of ‘anti-Russia’ voices as well. Thence, the policy debate has turned into a sort of one-sided narrative. The term ‘Kremlin assets’ has not been employed sparingly in Washington’s corridors, to say the least.
The moderates in Washington, with respect to the Russia policy debate, are no appeasers [with emphasis]—even farther from being unpatriotic ‘Kremlin assets’; they are simply rational pragmatists. Consider for example, Mr. Matthew Rojansky, the director of the Woodrow Wilson’s Kennan Institute. An article that he had contributed to the Moscow Times back in 2017 resulted in his blocking off a post on the US National Security Council (Robinson).
He simply raised concerns relating to, ““Cold War-style paranoia about the Russian bogeyman,”” (Robinson). That is a legitimate concern for any reasonably pragmatic and détente-seeking expert to raise. A paranoia of this nature is innately destructive: it distorts the freedom of political discourse; instills an air of intimidation; and falsely accuses moderates and doves for lacking patriotic fervor; if not pseudo-incriminates them for being Kremlin agents.
One can find traces of similar conduct in history.
The historical analogue for this paranoia is not found in the ‘containment’ policy devised in last century’s Cold War—as some might hastily presume—not even in American history altogether. This ‘anti-Russian’ fever calls to one’s mind a dark period peculiar to the French Revolution known as: the Reign of Terror (1793 – 1794). Then, anyone suspected as ‘counter-revolutionary’ was put to trial—and, in the vast majority of cases, guillotined.
There was this romantic flair to that first egalitarian invention of the French Revolution, the guillotine.
Today, in like manner (i.e. figuratively speaking), ‘Kremlin asset’ is the contemporary so-called ‘patriotic’ guillotine gaining grounds in Washington D.C., that would intimidate and put to silence moderates and doves vis-á-vis the Russia Policy debate.
Furthermore, this entire paranoia is all too often derived from nonsensical abstractions. In reference to Mr. Rojansky’s case, his complaint/concern has been abstracted out of context and used against him. For in that very same article, he had noted that
““[Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a huge problem for the United States… He has crushed every bud of liberal democracy in Russia, has invaded Ukraine to seize its sovereign territory by force, at the cost of well over 10,000 lives, and he has backed the dictator Bashar Assad in Syria, with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands.”” (Robinson)
Mr. Rojansky had condemned and criticized the Russian President alongside Russia’s actions in both Ukraine and Syria far more forcefully than his aforementioned complaint. Hence, on what logical grounds had the anti-Kremlin lobby and the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America lobby group established their allegations against Mr. Rojansky?
[Note: this is no defense, nor an adoption, of Mr. Rojansky’s views, but one for the clique of moderates he belongs to]
Probably, we’ll find the Ukrainian government at the center of all of this—nurturing the Russophobia—in order to inspire US intervention in the Ukrainian theater. Nonetheless, Ukraine remains a very delicate theater, which the United States has to approach with utmost prudence. [refer to “Zelensky’s Ukraine: An Asset or a Liability for the United States?” to learn more]
In a nutshell, the truth of the matter is this:
There’s no such thing as ‘diabolic’ or ‘angelic’ state. It is a far-fetched conception, that would only be fit for comic books intended for toddlers. States are international actors who conduct themselves, first and foremost, according to their interests.
President Biden seems to have a thorough understanding thereof [see “Presidents Biden and Putin ‘Understand One Another’”], unlike some political circles in Washington D.C.
Perhaps, they tend to forget that it was moderation—not hawkishness—that guided President Kennedy’s navigation through the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 [also refer to “A Lesson to Learn from JFK”]. Moderation is the fertile soil for the cultivation of détente.
In sum, the ‘anti-Russian’ paranoia is anything but practicable—much less productive for the Russia policy debate.
Reference
Robinson, Paul. “Nobody Can Ever Hate Russia Enough to Satisfy West’s Fanatical Anti-Moscow Fringe, As Mainstream Commentators Are Now Discovering.” RT International, 15 May 2021, www.rt.com/russia/523816-fanatical-anti-kremlin-hatred/.
