Stopping That Soviet Threat

It’s a given that the Republican party lacks anything resembling a a new idea, but some of their old ideas are downright scary.  Did you know we still face a soviet threat?  That’s what one Republican Senator said, while trying to justify a policy that just may be a cover-up to hide a Republican threat against Russia.

Appearing on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell today, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) attempted to justify the threatened Republican obstruction of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. But in doing so, he wrongly called Russia the Soviet Union — not once, but twice. Watch it:

 

While Barrasso may say this was a slip of the tongue and that he knows that the Soviet Union collapsed nearly twenty years ago in 1991, this is not the first time far-right senators have made this mistake when talking about START. Barrasso also tellingly concluded his remarks by asserting that he disagrees “with the component [of START] that weakens our own missile defense against all enemies, not just the Soviet Union.”

Grouping the Soviet Union (meaning Russia) with other “enemies” of the U.S., is reflective of an outdated Cold War mindset that can only lead to renewed tensions with Russia.

Should Republicans kill the New START treaty, the “reset” of U.S.-Russian relations may collapse. This could endanger U.S. troops in Afghanistan, who depend on supply routes through Russia, and could derail Russian cooperation on Iran sanctions. Perhaps most worrying is that without New START, the U.S. will be unable to monitor Russia’s nuclear arsenal as it has since the end of the Cold War, potentially creating significant nuclear instability… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

Rachel Maddow thinks that the sole reason for this is the Republican policy of opposing anything Obama likes, including their own ideas.  She and Josh Rogin make an excellent case for this.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here we have one of those rare instances in which I think Rachel might be mistaken.

I think that Republicans still think of Russia as the enemy.  In addition, this stance could involve corporate criminal greed.  When the Soviet Union broke up four new independent republics, collectively known as the Stans,  around the Caspian Sea, inherited the Soviet Union’s huge gas reserves.  Currently the gas from those fields are piped to Russia and distributed by Gazprom, Russia’s largest company, and the largest supplier of natural gas in the world.  Republicans want control of that gas and have made two earlier attempts to snatch it.

Before GW Bush invaded Afghanistan, he buddied up to the Taliban to negotiate a pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Karachi to bring that gas under US control.

After Bush invaded Afghanistan, he installed a Unocal (own part of Chevron) employee with expertise in gas pipelines, Hamid Karzai, as puppet President there.  He then shifted the focus of US troops securing the route to build that pipeline.  He failed.

As long as Russia has a resource that Republicans want, they will look for ways to take it, making Russia their enemy.  If they accuse Obama of being a communist with impunity, is it that far fetched that they would accuse Russia as well?

Back to Rachel’s piece, Lugar is right.  Reid should call his party’s bluff.  But what will Reid do?  I fear that he will do what he usually does: wag his tail, hump a few Republican legs begging for votes, whine, roll over and play dead.