These Ukrainian nationalists playing the USA's game
Primary tabs
These Ukrainian nationalists playing the USA's game
Taking the Ukrainian actuality in consideration, we are back to "the good old times" of the Cold War, a time when everything was simple: "good guys" at one side, "bad guys" at the other. Is history repeating itself?
History never repeats itself, but there are historical constants. The tension between Land Power, represented by the Eurasian continent, and the Sea Power, represented by the USA, is one of those constants. A return of the Cold War? I would rather say it has never ended. The proof is that NATO, who should have disappeared at the same time as the Warsaw Pact, has, on the contrary, become an american-centered war machine with planetary vocation. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall it never ceased to deploy itself in the East, in a blatant violation of the assurances given to Gorbachev at the moment of the German reunification. The Ukrainian crisis is inscribed in this very context. To the Americans, it is about being present as far as the Russian borders - something Russia cannot, obviously, accept. Could you imagine the USA accepting the installation of Russian bases in Mexico?
What is news is that Europe doesn't even have the excuse of the "soviet threat" to justify its atlantism. The way with which the public opinion is systematically uninformed regarding Ukraine confirms the servilism in which the European Union has fallen. The government issued from the coup in Maidan make their bombers and tanks shoot the Russian "separatists", the civil war has already made 2.500 casualties, and those who yesterday have accused Bashar Al-Asad of "massacre of his own people" are the ones applauding this today (or they don't care absolutely).
As to Ukrainian nationalists, whose goals were not despisable, their analytical mistakes make them end up as fools in this game. They hold weapons against their own compatriots, they traded a pro-Russian oligarch for an yet more corrupted one, a "King of Chocolate" obeying orders from Washington and the European Union, who count on Westerners to save from bankruptcy an Ukraine who will henceforth fall down to the level of a Third World country. This means they went from bad to worse.
Truth is, there is no military solution for the Ukrainian crisis - and this is a very serious one. If Kiev does not accept to establish a federal system in order to allow to the country's many components, starting with Donbass, to benefit from their autonomy, the civil war will be extended and Ukraine will break in two, maybe even in three parts. Russia will not at all be able to remain inert. Or, as has stated Dominique Jamet, an armed confrontation between the Kremlin and a Ukraine then a NATO member could degenerate into the Third World War. The Americans cannot be unaware of this. Should we think that this is what they are looking for?
Vladimir Putin recently explained that the big mistake made by the West was having forced Ukraine to choose between the East and the West, once its natural vocation was to establish a "bridge" between both. Does this make sense?
Naturally, but there are other frontiers that could serve as a "bridge" (we could have said the same about Alsace-Lorraine, which has not prevented the World War I of happening). In 1823, the USA has creadted the Monroe Doctrine, prohibiting any foreign intervention in their influence zone. The European drama is that it doesn't have a Monroe Doctrine. Although it is complementary to Russia in its very foundations, it pledges allegiance to Washington, more and more so. The "European Europe" has been forgotten and there is now but a Euro-American couple with no strategic vision of its interest, and whose leadership in Washington constitutes a minor common denominator. With no illusions whatsoever about the Europeans, Putin, by his side, turns to China and to the BRICS. And who knows if, within the next weeks, India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia will become full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, already counting with Russian, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kirghistan, meaning more than threee billion people?
Despite the media propaganda, Putin maintains in France an undeniable capital of sympathy, both to the right and to left wings. Do you see in him, like others, a "savior", whose example it to be followed?
Even though I am not one of those who judge him through ready-made formulas that only reflect ignorance ("a new tsar", "former KGB", "red-brown dictator", etc.), I am not one of his idolaters. Vladimir Putin is not, certainly, only qualities. His Internal Affairs, his governance methods might be criticized, for sure. There is also in him a sort of indecision that prevents him from clearly making up his mind as to which clans should advise him. But it is also as evident that his a great, an maybe a grandiose Statesman - one of the only ones existing today. With a popularity rate that excedes 90% nowadays, he put Russia on track and aspires to bring it to the proper rank. He wants Russia to keep loyalty to its history and believes its people deserve to have a destiny. This is, in itself, huge. The very fact that the USA see in him a number one obstacle to the New World Order that they want to impose is a justification for a meritorious support to Putin. Because that against what this New World Order adresses itself is also a menace against us, here and now.
tranls. Flavia Virginia