No, this is not a good time to be a critic of American foreign policy, of finding fault with ourselves, our econo-political system, or the bellicose components which hold together the Empire. For some insane predatory reason, the American elite is not just content with having “capitalistically” sunk the Soviet Union three decades ago . . . but want to make sure core-Russia remains down and out.
Listening to the strident voices coming from the ultra-hawks (McCain & friends) or those who tag themselves as non-interventionists (Sen. Rand Paul leading a Libertarian charge), there seems to be a significant rallying effort to vilify Russia and Putin by the Siamese-parties which rule political USA; while, needless to say, American corporate media keeps playing its jingo-tuned banjo chords, unashamedly feeding the public pure, unadulterated propaganda with Washington’s imprimatur.
No matter how we shuffle the media deck of cards in America, and to a lesser extent in the EU, the cards that will be dealt to the citizenry will have time and again the same message: West represents Good and East represents Evil; not just under communism but any other ism . . . these days translating to “Putinism.” Those who thought America’s elite would relent with a capitalist Russia are beginning to understand why Vladimir Putin stated that the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in the 20th century was the Soviet collapse. Maybe Putin’s statement was only intended for internal political consumption, but history might render such remark to possess much after-the-fact wisdom.
America’s government, elected by and representing the interests of a minority elite, totally abhors that nations or peoples which inhabit the planet be influenced by anyone other than the US, particularly when “American interests” are at stake—something which means, given the far-reaching claws of the empire, in every possible situation. So non-vassal nations whether in South America, Europe, Africa or Asia are always under scrutiny by the CIA et al! The empire’s efforts, however, extend beyond the realm of espionage, always creating the necessary political maelstrom to make sure Washington gets its way. It happened in Georgia and several former Soviet republics, and now we are seeing the final result of the witches’ brew started four years ago in Ukraine.
Yulia Tymoshenko, a physically attractive capitalist Joan of Arc, became prime minister of Ukraine from 2007 to 2010, but was deposed in the 2010 elections by Yanukovych (Viktor) and soon thereafter sent to serve a 7-year sentence for embezzlement. While Tymoshenko as PM, and later as leader of the opposition, wanted close ties with the EU, Yanukovych’s efforts in trying to get a sizeable financial “rescue package” from the EU couldn’t even get to first base. It was after that failed effort when he turned to Russia to save Ukraine from bankruptcy. And Russia, undeniably seeking to bring its former Soviet sister republic into its sphere of influence . . . what we are likely to call, eventually, the Eurasia Common Market, provided Yanukovych’s government with a financial package to be made up, for the most part, of energy subsidies; all in all, a package several times that which was offered by Brussels.
But the rioters’ pot was reaching the boiling point. Nationalist factions, some with origin and training principally in Poland and Lithuania, took not only the streets of Kiev but the seat of government as well: overthrowing an elected government via an amalgamation of neo-Nazis, soldiers of fortune under the cover of NGOs, self-identified ethnic Ukrainian patriots, and the usual—if legitimate—groups of malcontents (perhaps the unemployed representing the largest group among the rioters). One might say that the CIA and its affirmative political action had done its job well, except that at the end of the day, just like the comical Keystone Cops of century-old Hollywood, the result will show failure instead of success. We are beginning to experience that in the Ukraine.
For the United States to complain about Putin’s action in response to the revolutionary coup is a combination of utter hypocrisy and superlative idiocy. All we need to do is put side by side America’s own Monroe Doctrine, and what we might call the Putin Doctrine (as defined by his actions). The Putin Doctrine in both geopolitical and “humane” terms wins the match hands down. Any well versed historian will attest to that!
In the late 1990s I visited (as a tourist) both Odessa and parts of the Crimean peninsula, including the Livadia Palace near Yalta (where FDR, Churchill, Stalin held their final conference as Germany was about to capitulate). Crimea might have been given in 1954 to Ukraine (by Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian) but I evidenced the place to be totally Russian . . . in language, in mores and in their love for Russia; independent from the fact that its population is overwhelmingly ethnic Russian. Actually, visiting Odessa, I did experience a similar, if not as pronounced, attitude. Although the ethnic-Russians are outnumbered 2 to 1 by the ethnic-Ukrainians, the lingua franca in the city/oblast is Russian (by choice, not force).
These are tumultuous days for both Ukrainians and Russians, siblings at best and first cousins even if special interests in the West interfere. The bottom line reality is rather simple, and no power in the West will be able to change that. Crimea, whatever its status as an autonomous republic is and will continue to be part of the Motherland (yes, Russia), with a non-negotiable geography for her defense; if cool heads win the day for ethnic-Ukrainians, things will return to pre-riots days and they will gladly join the common market that Putin has in mind. But if ethnic-Ukrainians have their hopes pledged to the EU, the 30-degree meridian will pretty much determine the breaking of Ukraine in two. And that will not serve the population of western Ukraine well.
Ben Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer, resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA), where he is principal of a business consulting firm. Contact him at ben@tanosborn.com.
RSS
Looking in the global mirror: Destabilizers R’Us . . . not Russia
Posted on March 5, 2014 by Ben Tanosborn
No, this is not a good time to be a critic of American foreign policy, of finding fault with ourselves, our econo-political system, or the bellicose components which hold together the Empire. For some insane predatory reason, the American elite is not just content with having “capitalistically” sunk the Soviet Union three decades ago . . . but want to make sure core-Russia remains down and out.
Listening to the strident voices coming from the ultra-hawks (McCain & friends) or those who tag themselves as non-interventionists (Sen. Rand Paul leading a Libertarian charge), there seems to be a significant rallying effort to vilify Russia and Putin by the Siamese-parties which rule political USA; while, needless to say, American corporate media keeps playing its jingo-tuned banjo chords, unashamedly feeding the public pure, unadulterated propaganda with Washington’s imprimatur.
No matter how we shuffle the media deck of cards in America, and to a lesser extent in the EU, the cards that will be dealt to the citizenry will have time and again the same message: West represents Good and East represents Evil; not just under communism but any other ism . . . these days translating to “Putinism.” Those who thought America’s elite would relent with a capitalist Russia are beginning to understand why Vladimir Putin stated that the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in the 20th century was the Soviet collapse. Maybe Putin’s statement was only intended for internal political consumption, but history might render such remark to possess much after-the-fact wisdom.
America’s government, elected by and representing the interests of a minority elite, totally abhors that nations or peoples which inhabit the planet be influenced by anyone other than the US, particularly when “American interests” are at stake—something which means, given the far-reaching claws of the empire, in every possible situation. So non-vassal nations whether in South America, Europe, Africa or Asia are always under scrutiny by the CIA et al! The empire’s efforts, however, extend beyond the realm of espionage, always creating the necessary political maelstrom to make sure Washington gets its way. It happened in Georgia and several former Soviet republics, and now we are seeing the final result of the witches’ brew started four years ago in Ukraine.
Yulia Tymoshenko, a physically attractive capitalist Joan of Arc, became prime minister of Ukraine from 2007 to 2010, but was deposed in the 2010 elections by Yanukovych (Viktor) and soon thereafter sent to serve a 7-year sentence for embezzlement. While Tymoshenko as PM, and later as leader of the opposition, wanted close ties with the EU, Yanukovych’s efforts in trying to get a sizeable financial “rescue package” from the EU couldn’t even get to first base. It was after that failed effort when he turned to Russia to save Ukraine from bankruptcy. And Russia, undeniably seeking to bring its former Soviet sister republic into its sphere of influence . . . what we are likely to call, eventually, the Eurasia Common Market, provided Yanukovych’s government with a financial package to be made up, for the most part, of energy subsidies; all in all, a package several times that which was offered by Brussels.
But the rioters’ pot was reaching the boiling point. Nationalist factions, some with origin and training principally in Poland and Lithuania, took not only the streets of Kiev but the seat of government as well: overthrowing an elected government via an amalgamation of neo-Nazis, soldiers of fortune under the cover of NGOs, self-identified ethnic Ukrainian patriots, and the usual—if legitimate—groups of malcontents (perhaps the unemployed representing the largest group among the rioters). One might say that the CIA and its affirmative political action had done its job well, except that at the end of the day, just like the comical Keystone Cops of century-old Hollywood, the result will show failure instead of success. We are beginning to experience that in the Ukraine.
For the United States to complain about Putin’s action in response to the revolutionary coup is a combination of utter hypocrisy and superlative idiocy. All we need to do is put side by side America’s own Monroe Doctrine, and what we might call the Putin Doctrine (as defined by his actions). The Putin Doctrine in both geopolitical and “humane” terms wins the match hands down. Any well versed historian will attest to that!
In the late 1990s I visited (as a tourist) both Odessa and parts of the Crimean peninsula, including the Livadia Palace near Yalta (where FDR, Churchill, Stalin held their final conference as Germany was about to capitulate). Crimea might have been given in 1954 to Ukraine (by Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian) but I evidenced the place to be totally Russian . . . in language, in mores and in their love for Russia; independent from the fact that its population is overwhelmingly ethnic Russian. Actually, visiting Odessa, I did experience a similar, if not as pronounced, attitude. Although the ethnic-Russians are outnumbered 2 to 1 by the ethnic-Ukrainians, the lingua franca in the city/oblast is Russian (by choice, not force).
These are tumultuous days for both Ukrainians and Russians, siblings at best and first cousins even if special interests in the West interfere. The bottom line reality is rather simple, and no power in the West will be able to change that. Crimea, whatever its status as an autonomous republic is and will continue to be part of the Motherland (yes, Russia), with a non-negotiable geography for her defense; if cool heads win the day for ethnic-Ukrainians, things will return to pre-riots days and they will gladly join the common market that Putin has in mind. But if ethnic-Ukrainians have their hopes pledged to the EU, the 30-degree meridian will pretty much determine the breaking of Ukraine in two. And that will not serve the population of western Ukraine well.
© 2014 Ben Tanosborn
Ben Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer, resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA), where he is principal of a business consulting firm. Contact him at ben@tanosborn.com.