People Who Have Not Succumbed to Anti-Russia Hysteria

"Russia hacked the DNC! Russia attacked American democracy! A new Pearl Harbor! A cyber 9-11!"

"And Trump is Putin's poodle. He's a traitor. Our government is controlled by a foreign enemy!"

This kind of rhetoric is absurd and exceedingly dangerous. It is also very common and completely mainstream. See for example here and here.

What makes this rhetoric so dangerous is that it increases tensions between the two nuclear superpowers. Needlessly. And with increased tensions comes a increased threat of war --nuclear war-- either intentional or accidental. And nuclear war is bad, really bad.

Glenn Greenwald points out:

If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks? Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor prompted U.S. involvement in a world war and, ultimately, dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan; 9/11 initiated wars in multiple countries that still, 17 years later, have no end in sight, along with a systematic and still-worsening erosion of basic civil liberties.

Fortunately there are at least some journalists, commentators, media organizations and politicians who have not succumbed to the anti-Russia hysteria. Please find their names below, in more or less random order.

Note how very few people working for major news organizations are on this list. And think about what that means for journalists who currently work for - or who aspire to work for - major news organizations. Reasonable skepticism of all things Russiagate, insisting on evidence rather than speculation, does not benefit your career. Quite the contrary.

Suggestions for additions or changes to this list are more than welcome at @koenswinkels. You can subscribe to the Twitter List version here.

The List

1. Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
2. Michael Tracey @mtracey
3. Scott Horton @scotthortonshow
4. Stephen Cohen
5. Richard Sakwa
6. Gareth Porter @garethporter
7. Julian Assange @julianassange
8. Aaron Mate @aaronjmate
9. Mollie Hemingway @mzhemingway
10. Max Blumenthal @maxblumenthal
11. Rand Paul @randpaul
12. Ron Paul @ronpaul
13. Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard
14. Dana Rohrabacher @DanaRohrabacher
15. Kyle Kulinski @kylekulinski
16. Thomas Massie @repthomasmassie
17. Robert Barnes @barnes_law
18. Yasha Levine @yashalevine
19. Daniel McAdams @daniellmcadams
20. Stephen Kinzer @stephenkinzer
21. The late Robert Parry @consortiumnews
22. Justin Raimondo @justinraimondo
23. Caitlin Johnstone @caitoz
24. Peter Hitchens @clarkemicah
25. Brendan O’Neill 
26. Thomas Woods @ThomasEWoods
27. Patrick Buchanan @patrickbuchanan
28. Stephen McIntyre @climateaudit
29. Paul Jay @PaulJay_RNN
30. Jeffrey St. Clair @jsccounterpunch
31. Justin Amash @justinamash
32. Jimmy Dore @jimmydore
33. Elizabeth Lea Vos @elizabethleavos
34. Seymour Hersh @seymourhersh
35. Peter Van Buren @wemeantwell
36. Noam Chomsky 
37. Joanne Leon @joanneleon
38. Dan Wright @aroundtheempire
39. Jim Kavanagh @ThePolemicist_
40. Tim Shorrock @timothys
41. Bryan MacDonald @27khv
42. Daniel McCarthy @toryanarchist
43. Abbie Martin @AbbyMartin
44. Robbie Martin @fluorescentgrey
45. Zach Haller @zachhaller
46. Doug Henwood @doughenwood
47. Tim Black @realtimblack
48. Ray McGovern @raymcgovern
49. Mary Dejevsky @marydejevsky
50. ‘Moon of Alabama’ @moonofalabama
51. Tucker Carlson @tuckercarlson
52. Craig Murray @craigmurrayorg

Media

1. Scott Horton Show
2. ConsortiumNews
3. Around the Empire
4. Spiked!
5. Citations Needed
6. The Real News Network
7. Ron Paul Liberty Report
8. AntiWar.com
9. The Nation 
10. LewRockwell.com
11. CounterPunch
12. Media Roots
13. World Socialist Website
14. Foreign Policy Focus
15. Disobedient Media
16. Unauthorized Disclosure

Mixed bag

1. Democracy Now
2. The Intercept
3. Moderate Rebels
4. The American Conservative

What is Anti-Russia Hysteria?

Anti-Russia hysteria consists of several beliefs:

1. Russia hacked the DNC & Podesta emails! And they engaged in a social media disinformation campaign! All in order to help elect Trump or at least to destabilize the US. 
2. Trump actually colluded with Russia to hack the emails and get elected! 
3. Putin has journalists and opponents killed (or tries to, eg in the case of Skripal). 
4. Russia is an enemy of the US and it is absurd to even entertain the notion that there could be a moral equivalence between Russian and American foreign policy! We are the goodies, they the baddies! 

You have NOT succumbed to the anti-Russia hysteria if:

1. Before you believe these claims you insist on seeing evidence for the claims that Russia hacked the emails, that Trump colluded with Russia, that Putin has journalists and opponents killed. 
2. You make an explicit, detailed comparison between American and Russian geopolitical actions and base your belief on that comparison. And you don’t simply resort to ‘Well, the US may have made some mistakes but the US has good intentions while Russia does not” unless you have good evidence for thinking that. 

Not everybody on this list meets all 4 criteria. Maybe doubting 3 out of 4 claims is sufficient to qualify as not having succumbed to anti-Russia hysteria.

Who Is Notable Enough?
In terms of notability, I use as a criterion whether the person:

1. writes for well known publications or appears on well known tv or radio shows or podcasts, and/or 
2. has more than 5,000 Twitter followers 

So for example I do not include myself (~500 Twitter followers) even though I am skeptical about or disagree with all 4 claims. Same goes for eg @rory_yeomans, @georgeszamuely & Novini.

I’m also not including people like Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson etc because they are unreasonably skeptical about unreasonably many things. They’re conspiracy theorists rather than skeptics.

Reasonable Disagreement
Of course the problem with the criteria mentioned above is that many people will say they have seen the evidence for these claims and that their beliefs are based on that evidence.

Here things get more subjective.

I don’t think a reasonable person can say that based on the publicly available information they have seen evidence for Trump-Russia conclusion, or that - other than by simply taking the relevant intelligence agencies at their word - there is enough evidence to be convinced that it was the Russian government that hacked the DNC & Podesta emails.

Nor do I think there is sufficient evidence to confidently conclude that Putin has had journalists and opponents murdered, let alone that he is in the habit of doing so.

But people may disagree with this assessment. People who present a reasonable, detailed argument why they think the publicly available evidence is sufficient to be somewhat confident, who are willing to discuss the issue in detail with others who doubt them, and who are willing to admit they can’t claim certainty or overwhelming confidence should also count as not having succumbed to anti-Russia hysteria.