The myopia of the freedom-lovers

We are right so whatever we do it is “peaceful” or self-defence. They are wrong. Whatever they do is an act of aggression.

[Russia] has made the conscious decision to use its military force inside of another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives. (Eurasiareview)

US General Martin Dempsey

And so it is time to dust off those cold war plans and start thinking about forward attack bases in Poland, cruise missile destroyers in the Black Sea, stationing fighter jets in the Baltic states etc.

President Putin pointed out that Russia too has its interests and will act in accordance with them. Russia has done nothing in this conflict which goes beyond the bounds of doing just that. That is the case even if Russia is arming the rebels in East Ukraine, or turning a blind eye to smuggling across its borders. (In fact the US has not presented any evidence to this effect; they simply recycle the claims of Kiev as truth).

The US and EU have captured Ukraine for US capitalism and for NATO. They did that by the usual methods by which freedom is spread. The US typically uses a system of NGOs to  undermine national culture †. Both the US and EU get involved in manipulating the political set-up ††, bribes, promises of business deals and juicy new contracts etc.. They captured Ukraine for Western business because it is in their economic interest to do that.

It is not in Russia’s interests to have a NATO member state right along its Southern flank. It was not in Russia’s interests to lose their Black Sea port of Sevastopol to NATO.  Russia is doing no more than protecting her legitimate interests. The EU to some extent can see this. That is evident. The US refuses to. They invent tales of an aggressive Russia. Where Russia is acting to defend her interests they see, or claim to see, an aggressive regional-power led by an ex-KGB lunatic driven by cold war animosities. In the end it seems they cannot tolerate that Russia can have any interests. There is something psychopathic about this exclusive interest in their own interests and in the unwillingness to allow the other any interests at all. It is simply an irrational hypothesis that Russia is acting out of “aggression” rather than protecting its national interests as it sees them.

The US clamours about “human rights” and “democracy”. But it is clear that the “new team” in Kiev struggles with these concepts. They have conducted a ruthless campaign in the East of their country and killed more than 400 civilians. This has included shelling civilian areas with unguided Grad rockets. ††† This, over a matter, which most European countries would settle by negotiations if they could. Kiev has not tried negotiations. (The nearest they came was an ultimatum). Currently the “new government” is looking for an excuse to ban the Communist Party of Ukraine from government ††††despite their having won 13% of the vote at the last parliamentary elections. (This attempt to politically disenfranchise 2 million  Ukraine voters is simply not covered by the Western press). Opinion polls show a radical divergence of opinion on questions such as NATO or EU membership between the West and centre of the country and the East. †††††  It is clear that the new regime (which is based on elements from the West and centre) has no intention of doing anything other than imposing its aims and values on the East. So much for democracy in the new Ukraine. None of this sits well with European values of human rights, inclusiveness, promotion of democracy and political plurality. But not a squeak from European “leaders” such as David Cameron.  The hypocrisy of the US does not need to be explained any longer.

The level of the US/NATO analysis beggars belief. For instance one of the leading theories is that President Putin is engaged in a planned strategy to foment trouble and maintain a military posture in regions such as the Russian enclave in Moldova and in  the Georgian region of South Ossetia. General Dempsey came out with it today. But it is a long-standing piece of NATO doctrine. The possibility that in some of the former Soviet republics there are a few people who actually wanted to stay with Russia is discounted. But in reality it would be bizarre if anything else was the case. These people really do live in a strange world of their own historically dislocated imaginations.










Author: justinwyllie

EFL Teacher and Photographer