Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

Occam’s Razor: A problem-solving principle stating that, when presented with competing hypotheses, the one with the fewer assumptions or entities (the simplest explanation) is usually the most likely to be correct, effectively “shaving away” unnecessary complexity to find truth.

On Sunday, the New York Times devoted a great deal of attention to explaining the unraveling of the U.S. partnership with Ukraine (“The Separation: Inside the Unraveling of America’s Partnership with Ukraine”) and the failure of Russian President Vladimir Putin to come to the assistance of Venezuela and its president, Nicolas Maduro (“Trump Seizes a Russian Ally, and Putin Stays Mum. Why?”). The answers to both of these problems were quite simple, but the Times never addressed them.

First, the Times’ reasons for Putin’s distance from the U.S. attack on Venezuela miss the point. The article stressed Putin’s “silence,” and attributed it to “Russia’s traditional New Year’s holiday period” and being careful to “avoid antagonizing Washington” as Putin “seeks a favorable outcome in Ukraine.” For these reasons, it argues, Putin avoided “playing hardball.” The Times even suggested that Russia “may have been capable of complicating the U.S. mission to capture Maduro.”

That is total nonsense. Russia couldn’t have done anything to challenge a U.S. mission in the Western Hemisphere or virtually anywhere else for that matter. The U.S. has power projection capabilities that are unequalled the world over, while Russia has never invested seriously in power projection. This is important because the mainstream media have always overestimated Russia’s capabilities, and this overestimation has led to public and congressional support for unneeded increases in defense spending.

The best example of this hesitancy on Russia’s part to assist allies is the October War in 1973, when President Anwar Sadat gave up on Russia’s willingness to ever support an Egyptian effort to regain the territories captured by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967. That is exactly why Egypt (with Syria) took the incredible risk of going it alone. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully when Nikita Khrushchev realized he lacked the conventional capabilities to deal with the United States militarily. The conventional wisdom is that the U.S. nuclear superiority was the reason for the diplomatic success, but that was never a factor.

Venezuela also provides an excellent example of the media’s exaggeration of Russian military capabilities and political influence. Ever since the Russians introduced a so-called sophisticated air defense in Venezuela, the U.S. government and the mainstream media have been extolling Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. last week exposed the fact that the S-300 air defense system was not fully functional and that key elements were not even connected to radar. So much for the so-called “ironclad” Russian relationship with Venezuela.

The Times’ front-page piece on the unraveling between the United States and Ukraine is more incredible because it devoted eight pages and never explained the key reason for the separation or unraveling. The Times and the media generally never try to explain Trump’s narcissist grandiosity that requires total and constant affirmation. His narcissism contributes to his contempt for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s unwillingness to find dirt on President Joe Biden in 2019, which led to Trump’s impeachment that year. Trump didn’t get what he wanted, and Zelensky continues to pay the price as the United States places significant limits on military aid and intelligence support to beleaguered Ukrainians.

There is a great deal of speculation in the media regarding relations between Trump and Putin, and applying Occam’s Razor is useful. The simplest explanation for Trump’s pro-Russian actions, which are hurting not only Ukraine but the entire Atlantic alliance, is his constant quest for personal financial gain. The peace plans for Russia and Ukraine are going nowhere but it is significant that all of them project financial gain for both Trump and Putin. The loser, of course is the victim—Ukraine—which had nothing to do with starting the war. Iran should keep this in mind if it genuinely expects Russia to come to its defense in the event of U.S. intervention if the protest movement continues to expand.

The post The New York Times and Occam’s Razor: Misunderstanding Ukraine and Venezuela appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed