Aaron Mate Discusses Foreign Policy At Hofstra University – OpEd

Hosting the likes of Ray McGovern, Jeffrey Sachs and Aaron Mate, is indicative of a Hofstra campus encouraging diverse views on key international issues. These individuals provide a different perspective to what’s typically presented in Western mass media. The October 10 discussion with Mate on foreign policy and the upcoming US presidential election, focused on the Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine situations. 

In the Q & A session, a distraught Jewish student (at the 1:08.13 mark) expressed opposition to the commentary regarding Israel-Palestine. The discourse exhibited was civility at its best. In answer to the student, Mate and Carolyn Eisenberg (53:52) highlighted their Jewish background, while being able to recognize Palestinian suffering, before and after the 10/7/23 Hamas terrorist attack.

As is often true with these kinds of events, this one ideally should’ve been longer, as there’s plenty of unfinished business pertaining to what was said. I’ve some main points of disagreement with David Green and Mate.

Contrary to Green (42.24), Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed opposition to a return of the Soviet Union. In other instances, Putin reasonably notes the manner of the Soviet breakup causing considerable hardship. In totality, he hasn’t advocated a return to the USSR.

Putin has correctly noted the historic Russian territories now outside Russia with an existing pro-Russian component. That observation doesn’t equate to seeking a reacquisition of these lands. At a UN Security Council meeting, I recall Mexico’s UN delegate noting historic Mexican territory forcefully taken away from Mexico, short of seeking its return.  

Putin and Russia at large willingly accepted a neutral Ukraine within its dubiously drawn Communist boundary, as long as that state was neutral and respected its pro-Russian community. This flexible stance runs opposite to the position taken by Western neocons, neolibs and Ukrainian nationalists with an anti-Russian bent. 

Among the comparative examples, Putin isn’t a worse global actor than Joe Biden (before and after his discernible cognitive decline) and (based on her unimaginative go with the flow establishment comments) Kamala Harris. In comparison, Putin more closely resembles the proverbial “adult in the room”. 

Since 1950, as well as since 2000, the US tops the chart when it comes to attacking other nations and killing people in the process. Saying that the US adversaries weren’t virtuous makes the case for Russia, relative to Georgia and Ukraine.

Georgia attacked South Ossetia in 2008, killing Russian civilians and peacekeepers. If Russia is so bad, then why do the Ossetians and Abkhaz prefer Russia over Georgia? Georgia could be somewhat of a precursor for Ukraine. 

Mikheil Saakashvili, the leader of Georgia in 2008 is now in a Georgian prison. Georgia has refused to join an economic blockade of Russia and a Kiev regime request to open up a second front against Russia. The Georgian government is considering a formal apology to South Ossetia. Key elements of the Georgian government are at odds with Western neocons and neolibs over the latter’s hypocritical opposition to a FARA like law (monitoring the foreign funding of non-governmental organizations) adopted in Georgia. The Georgian and Russian churches maintain good relations.

Mate expressed his opposition to the 2/24/22 Russian Special Military Operation (SMO), saying it didn’t exhaust other means (28:08). He then chronicles a series of events which IMHO contradict his claim. Putting aside WW II, I’m interested to know which armed conflicts he believes didn’t exhaust all reasonable peaceful means?

The Kiev regime had seven years to honor the UN Security Council approved Minsk Accords it signed for Donbass autonomy within Ukraine. Germany, France and the Kiev regime acknowledged never intending to honor that legally binding agreement. (Germany and France were guarantors of the Minsk Accords.)

In the leadup to the SMO, OSCE observers noted a sharp increase in Kiev regime shelling of rebel held Donbass territory. Had Russia remained passive, there’s good reason to believe there would’ve been an Operation Storm like action – referring to the 1995 ethnic cleansing of 150,000-250,000 Krajina Serbs, along with hundreds of dead (mostly elderly and/or infirmed) C/O a government, whose president at the time honored Croatia’s WW II Ustashe legacy.

The initial Russian SMO deployment was limited in number, unindicative of a move to take Kiev or all of Ukraine. Rather, Russia sought to get the Kiev regime to implement a settlement agreement.

Shortly after the SMO, the two sides held discussions in Belarus and later in Turkey. Multiple sources directly and indirectly involved with that process felt the two sides appeared to be on the verge of likely signing a treaty.

There’re a few major differences between the earlier Minsk Accords and the Turkish rendition. The latter stipulated a limit on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces, along with Ukraine being neutral.

In addition, the Kiev regime was required to recognize the two Donbass areas of Lugansk and Donetsk as independent. Another difference is Ukraine not having to recognize Crimea as Russian, with the two sides holding future talks about that territory. (In 2014, Crimea reunified with Russia soon after a coup in Kiev overthrew the Ukrainian president, with the undemocratic replacement regime top heavy with nationalist anti-Russian advocates.) 

With approval from people like Victoria Nuland – Boris Johnson flew to Ukraine and encouraged the Kiev regime to walk away from the Turkish based agreement. Within reason,others have argued the two sides remained far apart regardless of Johnson’s visit. Lindsey Graham’s comment (among others in US establishment circles) about “fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian”, favors the opportunity to engage in a proxy war against Russia.

Mate expressed his opposition to Putin (1:05.15). I respect Mate for having earnestly faced one-sided discussions against him on Piers Morgan’s show. Mate has also been substantively critical of those in media (including Rachel Maddow and Amy Goodman) for giving credence to the faulty Russiagate narrative. All this said, is there an unofficial rule that one should express opposition to Putin and the SMO in order to better get a speaking engagement at a major US venue?

The Hofstra event wasn’t the first time Mate expressed his views on Putin and the SMO. It’s not up to Mate, Biden and yours truly to select the Russian president. 

Biden is mentioned on account of his arrogant statement (when he was vice president) that Putin shouldn’t run for president. In opposition to the SMO, President Biden said Putin shouldn’t remain in office. 

Talk about foreign meddling in an election process. BTW, Putin hasn’t cancelled any Russian presidential election, unlike the action Volodymyr Zelensky took in cancelling the last scheduled presidential vote in Kiev regime-controlled Ukraine.

Western involved polls confirm Putin’s popularity in Russia being greater than what his Western peers in the US, UK, Germany, Canada and France have in their respective nation. It’s the high point of arrogance and ignorance to believe people outside Russia are generally better informed about who should lead that nation than Russian citizens living there.

Biden hasn’t called for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s resignation. On the matter of Biden’s selective outrage to armed conflicts affecting civilians, Mate (in at least one prior instance) has referenced Biden telling then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to be more aggressive towards the Palestinians. Over the course of his political career, Biden has favored the use of American force against other nations.

Biden is by no means alone, as evidenced by the multiple ovations numerous US lawmakers recently gave to Netanyahu. Many of these same individuals piously single out Putin as the arch villain.

The number of civilians killed as result of Russia’s SMO is considerably less the number of Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli Defense Forces since October 7. Mind you, the SMO is the longer lasting operation, encompassing a greater civilian population. Yet CNN, BBC, et al, are prone to singling out the SMO with the words “brutal”,  “unprovoked” and “aggression” unlike the Israeli action taken in Gaza.

Eisenberg (52:48) briefly shared her experience of how Russia was negatively perceived in the US during the 1950s and 1960s with the present day. There were some key differences.

The Soviet Union of that era posed a greater threat to the US than post-Soviet Russia. Under Boris Yeltsin and Putin, Russia sought NATO membership at a time when there was a considerable pro-West mood among Russia’s population and political establishment. An overview of what transpired indicates Russia wasn’t the party actively seeking to drift away from that sentiment.

Despite the Cold War period, Hollywood in 1966 came out with a movie “The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming“, which ridicules Russophobia and underscores what Russians and Americans have in common. Democrat Carl Reiner starred in that movie. Fast forward to the present and Reiner’s Meathead son Rob, has been involved with some of the negative inaccuracies about Russia.

Hollywood hasn’t done an updated version of that movie bringing into play the current era. On the other hand, this entity in 2004 released an updated version of the 1962 film “The Manchurian Candidate“, depicting a sinister foreign force attempting to corrupt the US presidency.

• Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.