Richo Unravelled: From Influence to Delusion

It’s been 30 years since a giant of Australian politics and political kingmaker, Senator Graham Richardson, barrelled his way through Federal Parliament, simultaneously injecting fear into political rivals and rattling their bones.

Richardson was the ‘Muscle’ for Federal Labor and a stalwart to former Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. He was a ‘Mr Fix It’ of Australian politics, a political heavyweight and key strategist and negotiator, wielding telling influence.

But that was a lifetime ago, and Richo, as he’s colloquially known, is anything but influential anymore.

The former senator’s influence is almost negligible, and how much he does have remains anyone’s guess. The power Richardson wielded, and those who fell victim to it, felt the unruliness of force by a man who didn’t hold back and exercised his brutality with surgical precision.

The renowned political kingmaker appeared to emerge out of obscurity recently, and not that I watch Sky News; however, it’s been years since I’d seen or heard of him. I last saw Richardson hosting his own program on Sky News - he was sick, battling cancer, and looking very much on the way out.

So, it’s great to see the 74-year-old alive and not succumbing yet to the insidious disease that is cancer. Words spoken by Richardson over the phone or across restaurant tables would make and unmake several political careers.

But his seeming emergence out of obscurity this week was marked by commentary around geopolitical matters that he’s unqualified to comment on, and if he is qualified, it’s a qualification gained through being propagandised over many years of US brainwashing.

Richardson, it appears, remains committed to running with a narrative that is ill-informed and without substance. Comments made by Richardson early this week made headlines for criticising former US President Donald Trump and what he perceives to be a favourable stance towards Russian President Vladimir Putin, which he labelled a "murderous thug."

“I know that Trump has this love affair with that murderous thug Putin – something I simply don’t understand,” Richardson told Sky News Australia.

“Whether he has that or not, the whole Washington elite don’t have it, and they would prevent him from doing anything stupid.”

The statement is typical of a level of ignorance and polarised view throughout the West, and it highlights why there is a need for a deeper examination of its implications and what the geopolitical realities are, not propaganda consistently peddled and drummed up by the US.

The narrative about Russia, fomented by the US and the West, lacks the nuanced understanding necessary to grasp the full spectrum of the country's strategic interests and historical context.

Russia's geopolitical actions have always been influenced by its history, dating back from the Mongol Empire to the Cold War.

This historical consciousness is pivotal to understanding what motivates Russia on the global stage - primarily driven by desires for security, sovereignty, and recognition as a major world power.

Characterising the relationship between Trump and Putin as a "love affair" simplifies the intricate nature of international relations into a binary narrative.

Richardson’s oversimplification of Trump’s attitude and relationship with Putin overlooks the strategic complexities governing state behaviours on the international stage, which is why he should stick to his lane and comment on what he knows about - global affairs isn’t one of them.

Being critical of Trump's diplomacy towards Russia reflects underlying assumptions of moral and ethical superiority often associated with Western perspectives.

However, it’s become overwhelmingly obvious the US is in no position to be decrying or condemning the false immoralities and criminality it's brainwashed the world to believe through its anti-Russia, hate Putin campaign, when America itself has been exposed as a terrorist nation because of the many illegal wars, proxy wars, coups, and overthrowing governments to facilitate its global hegemony it has created over the past 60 years.

Exposing the real America to the world has seen both independent news and media organisations and social media play a decisive role in informing people about who and what US administrations have been facilitating since the 1960s. Richardson’s view fosters an interpretation of global events that’s not only inherently biased but fails to recognise the complexities and vested interests which dictate international politics.

America’s own history of foreign interventions, with their mixed outcomes, illustrates the complexities of assigning moral high ground in international affairs. Richardson's comments contribute to the echo chambers created and reinforce a single view that hinders understanding of geopolitics.

For people like Richo to break free from the echo chambers that have consumed him requires him to engage with different perspectives and explore the historical and cultural contexts that shape international politics rather than allow ill-informed biased reporting from captured ‘news organisations’ who tow US propaganda.

Understanding the broader context of geopolitics, including the legitimate concerns of all nations, is crucial for debate. Richardson's assessment of the US-Russia relationship ignites a conversation which goes beyond personalities, but delves into history, national interests, and the intricate web of global power dynamics.