Wanneer Fokke Obbema als opiniemaker namens De Volkskrant beweert dat
de Europese leiders op enig moment met geloofwaardige sancties moeten komen. Zij moeten de bereidheid aan de dag leggen de prijs daarvoor te betalen. Want uiteindelijk moet het belang van veiligheid en stabiliteit op langere termijn zwaarder wegen dan de economische belangen van dit moment,
en de EU daarom een 'raket' van een zwaarder kaliber moet 'afvuren,' dan is deze mainstream journalist druk doende de geesten rijp te maken voor desnoods een gewelddadig conflict met de nucleaire supermacht Rusland. Obbema negeert het feit dat bij een dergelijk conflict een proces op gang wordt gebracht die door geen van de partijen kan worden beheerst, zoals de geschiedenis meermaals heeft aangetoond. Hij negeert ook het feit dat in een moderne oorlog geen van de partijen kan winnen, en dat de kunstmatig gecreëerde spanning in een nucleair treffen kan eindigen, waarvan allereerst de burgerbevolking het slachtoffer zal zijn. Bovendien heeft de VS na 1945 geen enkele oorlog gewonnen, vanaf Korea tot het illegale inval in Irak. Zelfs de gewelddadige interventie in Libië is evenals die in Afghanistan en Irak uitgemond in massaal leed en totale chaos. Desalniettemin leert de westerse mainstream pers van deze ervaringen niets. Dat is niet vreemd, ze kan namelijk niets leren uit de praktijk aangezien ze geen onafhankelijke journalistiek bedrijft maar mainstream propaganda. De Obbema's in de commerciële massamedia zijn de spreekbuizen van de gevestigde orde, die loyaal zijn en blijven aan de officiële versie van de werkelijkheid, te weten: wij zijn goed, zij zijn fout. Het is een kinderlijke voorstelling van zaken met verregaande, zelfs levensgevaarlijke, consequenties.
In 1995 zag ik in het grote kinderziekenhuis van Bagdad Iraakse kankerpatiëntjes van nog geen tien jaar onder helse pijn sterven aan de gevolgen van de grootschalige Amerikaanse en Britse inzet van verarmd uranium wapens. De Iraakse artsen beschikten niet over pijnstillers, omdat het sanctiebeleid de import ervan verbood. Oorlog lijdt onvermijdelijk tot het ontmenselijken van De Ander, de vermeende vijand, die op de meest gruwelijke manier kan worden vernietigd. Een voorbeeld daarvan gaf de Nederlandse oud-'topdiplomaat' Peter van Walsum, volgens de NRC-journalisten Robert van de Roer en Peter Vermaas 'het beste dat Nederland in huis heeft' en 'het visitekaartje in het buitenland.' Van Walsum was twee jaar lang voorzitter van de Irak-Sanctiecommissie van de VN, en als zodanig medeverantwoordelijk voor de dood van — volgens de VN zelf — een half miljoen Iraakse kinderen onder de vijf jaar, waardoor zonder overdrijven gesteld kan worden dat 'het beste' zogeheten 'visitekaartje' dat 'Nederland in huis heeft' als een volwaardige Schreibtischmörder handelde.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Walsum
In een onthullend interview met de befaamde onderzoeksjournalist John Pilger werd duidelijk wat Peter van Walsum in werkelijkheid dacht en hoe hij handelde:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Walsum
In een onthullend interview met de befaamde onderzoeksjournalist John Pilger werd duidelijk wat Peter van Walsum in werkelijkheid dacht en hoe hij handelde:
In December 1999 John Pilger asked Peter van Walsum, Chairman of the UN Sanctions Committee to explain why Iraq is still being subjected to economic sanctions. The transcript of the interview appears below.
John Pilger: Why should the civilian population, innocent people, be punished for Saddam's crimes?
Peter van Walsum: It's a difficult problem. You should realize that sanctions are one of the curative measures that the Security Council has at its disposal. And obviously they hurt. They are like a military measure.
JP: But who do they hurt?
PW: Well, this, of course is the problem, but with military action, too, you have the eternal problem of collateral damage.
JP: So an entire nation is collateral damage? Is that correct?
PW: No, I am saying that sanctions have (similar) effects. You understand we have to study this further.
JP: Do you believe that people have human rights no matter where they live or under what system?
PW: Yes.
JP: Doesn't that mean that the sanctions you are imposing are violating the human rights of millions of people?
PW: It's also documented that the Iraqi regime has committed very serious human rights breaches.
JP: There is no doubt about that. But what is the difference in principle between human rights violations committed by the regime and those caused by your committee?
PW: It's a very complex issue Mr Pilger.
JP: What do you say to those who describe sanctions that have caused so many deaths as 'weapons of mass destruction' as lethal as chemical weapons?
PW: I don't think that's a fair comparison.
JP: Aren't the deaths of half a million children mass destruction?
PW: I don't think you can use that argument to convince me...
JP: How much power does the United States exercise over your committee?
PW: We operate by consensus.
JP: And what if the Americans object?
PW: We don't operate.
Uitgaande van het feit dat het vermoorden van een half miljoen Iraakse kinderen onder de vijf jaar als gevolg van het sanctiebeleid voor Van Walsum geen 'argument' is 'dat mij kan overtuigen,' kan de conclusie alleen maar zijn dat voor de oud-diplomaat de logica van het geweld tot het bittere einde moest worden doorgevoerd.
John Pilger: Why should the civilian population, innocent people, be punished for Saddam's crimes?
Peter van Walsum: It's a difficult problem. You should realize that sanctions are one of the curative measures that the Security Council has at its disposal. And obviously they hurt. They are like a military measure... It's a very complex issue Mr Pilger... I repeat it's complex.
Dat Peter van Walsum een politiek uitvoerde zonder enige humanitaire overweging, blijkt uit het feit dat dit beleid door direct betrokken VN-autoriteiten zelf als 'genocidaal' werd betiteld.
After Denis Halliday resigned as UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq in October 1998, von Sponeck took over, heading all UN operations in Iraq and managing the Iraqi operations of the Oil-for-Food program. Von Sponeck together with Jutta Burghardt, head of the UN World Food Programme in Iraq, resigned in February 2000 for the same reason as Halliday, to protest UN's Iraq sanctions policy. Von Sponeck and Halliday wrote an article in The Guardian explaining their position, accusing the sanctions regime of violating the Geneva Conventions and other international laws and causing the death of thousands of Iraqis.
Dennis Halliday merkte voorts op:
my innate sense of justice was and still is outraged by the violence that UN sanctions have brought upon, and continues to bring upon, the lives of children, families – the extended families, the loved ones of Iraq. There is no justification for killing the young people of Iraq, not the aged, not the sick, not the rich, not the poor.
Some will tell you that the leadership is punishing the Iraqi people. That is not my perception, or experience from living in Baghdad. And were that to be the case – how can that possibly justify further punishment, in fact collective punishment, by the United Nations? I don’t think so. And international law has no provision for the disproportionate and murderous consequences of the ongoing UN embargo – for well over 12 long years.
Ondanks het gegeven dat deze terreur in strijd was met elementaire regels van het internationaal recht rechtvaardigde Van Walsum de wreedheden met de opmerking:
Well, this, of course is the problem, but with military action, too, you have the eternal problem of collateral damage.
JP: What do you say to those who describe sanctions that have caused so many deaths as 'weapons of mass destruction' as lethal as chemical weapons?
PW: I don't think that's a fair comparison.
JP: Aren't the deaths of half a million children mass destruction?
PW: I don't think you can use that argument to convince me.
Voor Peter van Walsum gold het vermoorden van een half miljoen Iraakse kinderen onder de vijf jaar als gevolg van onder andere zijn eigen sanctiebeleid absoluut niet als een 'argument om me te overtuigen' dat deze massamoord ogenblikkelijk gestopt moest worden. De Amerikanen hadden de politiek uitgestippeld en Van Walsum voerde de opdracht uit met een kadaverdiscipline waarvoor Adolf Eichmann bewondering zou hebben gehad. En dat deed Van Walsum uit eigen 'Vrije Wil,' een onderwerp waar hij veel van schijnt te weten als we afgaan op de titel van zijn boek. Het wezenlijke probleem hier is dat wanneer mainstream-journalisten als Fokke Obbema de geest rijp maken voor grootschalig geweld bureaucraten als Peter van Walsum als vanzelf naar boven komen drijven. Oorlog is niets anders dan massaal moorden, waarbij er geen enkele rechtvaardiging denkbaar is om kinderen, vrouwen, bejaarden en in het algemeen ongewapende burgers stelselmatig af te slachten. Degenen die dit het beste kunnen zijn sociopaten en psychopaten die niet worden gehinderd door morele normen en waarden, mensen dus die door een psychisch defect geen geweten hebben. Deze pathologische gevallen worden, zoals in het geval van Peter van Walsum, door de polderpers afgeschilderd als 'topdiplomaat' een vakman, die 'zijn naam als eigenzinnig denker met scherpe tong waar[maakte],' en daardoor een 'visitekaartje' is waarop de massa trots dient te zijn, aangezien hij 'het beste is dat Nederland in huis heeft.' Strikt genomen is hier sprake van een criminele organisatie, een terroristische groepering. De journalistiek rechtvaardigt de terreur, de politiek sanctioneert de terreur, de bureaucratie organiseert de terreur, en het voetvolk voert de terreur uit. In een werkelijke beschaving zou een functionaris als Peter van Walsum allang voor het gerecht zijn gedaagd om zich te verantwoorden voor zijn genocidaal beleid, voor een politiek waarover hij geen enkele gewetenswroeging heeft getoond. Hij is inderdaad een schoolvoorbeeld van de door Hannah Arendt zo helder beschreven 'banality of evil.'
John Pilger: Why should the civilian population, innocent people, be punished for Saddam's crimes?
Peter van Walsum: It's a difficult problem. You should realize that sanctions are one of the curative measures that the Security Council has at its disposal. And obviously they hurt. They are like a military measure...
Ook zijn taalgebruik is kenmerkend: 'curative measures,' oftewel 'heilzame maatregelen' heet het vermoorden van kinderen in de taal van de gewetenlozen. Voor dit soort mensen, die stellen dat de moord op tenminste een half miljoen Iraakse kleuters niets anders is dan één van de 'curative measures,' wordt terreur gelegitimeerd met het eufemisme 'collateral damage,' dus 'bijkomende schade.'
Aangezien ik als journalist meer dan eens de 'collateral damage' van nabij heb gezien, ben ik van mening dat dit begrip nader moet worden geanalyseerd. Is hier sprake van 'bijkomende schade'? Ik bedoel: 'bijkomend' bij wat? Het geproclameerde doel was Saddam Hoessein kalt te stellen, 'regime change,' maar volgens VN-autoriteiten zelf brachten de sancties 13 jaar lang geen wezenlijke 'schade' toe aan het regime van de dictator. Integendeel zelfs, Saddam en zijn zoons lieten talloze paleizen erbij bouwen, en zijn bendeleden leefden in weelde. Het was alleen de bevolking die zwaar leed onder de sanctieregime. Het eufemisme 'bijkomende schade' is in dit geval ook een propagandabegrip waarachter terreur schuilgaat. In werkelijkheid vond er een langdurige collectieve bestraffing van Iraakse burgers plaats, 'collective punishment' zoals de VN-functionaris Dennis Halliday, uitvoerder ter plaatse van deze politiek, terecht verklaarde nadat hij uit protest was opgestapt. Collectieve bestraffing van een burgerbevolking is een oorlogsmisdaad. Met andere woorden: Peter van Walsum rechtvaardigt een oorlogsmisdaad met het begrip 'bijkomende schade,' alsof het hier een per ongeluk afgezwaaide bom betreft die een tiental slachtoffers maakt en niet een bewust geplande 'genocidale' politiek, die tenminste een half miljoen Iraakse kinderen vernietigde, zoals Halliday en de VN zelf aantoonden. Met andere woorden: Peter van Walsum rechtvaardigt terreur en kan als zodanig gezien worden als een terrorist, dat wil zeggen: uitgaande van het Amerikaanse Leger-handboek dat terrorisme als volgt formuleert: 'het bewust geplande gebruik van geweld of dreiging van geweld om doelen te bereiken die politiek, religieus, of ideologisch van aard zijn.' En dan krijgt men dit:
John Pilger: Aren't the deaths of half a million children mass destruction?
Peter van Walsum: I don't think you can use that argument to convince me.
Van Walsum lijdt aan aan wat Hannah Arendt het kwaad van de moderne gedachteloosheid noemde. Hij is niet in staat zijn verbeeldingskracht te laten werken, net als een beroepsmisdadiger kan hij zich niet in de positie van zijn slachtoffer verplaatsen. Volgens 'the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as many as 5 percent of the population display psychopathic or sociopathic personality disorders, so it's no wonder a number of popular protagonists do, too. The symptoms, according to Psychology Today, are:
Egocentric
Lack of guilt
Egocentric and grandiose
Lack of empathy
Shallow emotions
Impulsive
Need for excitement
Antisocial behavior
Over dit onderwerp sprak ik in november 2009 met de joods-Israelische filmmaker Eyal Sivan. Hij vertelde me veel meer geïnteresseerd te zijn in de dader dan in het slachtoffer, omdat iedereen zich volstrekt vrijblijvend met een slachtoffer kan identificeren, maar nagenoeg niemand met een dader. De dader vertegenwoordigt het kwaad dat altijd buiten onszelf wordt geprojecteerd, wij kunnen slechts het onschuldige slachtoffer zijn, want wij zijn goed. Op die manier ontkennen we onze eigen verantwoordelijkheid, en kan iemand als Peter van Walsum door het establishment en zijn woordvoerders gekwalificeerd worden als 'het visitekaartje in het buitenland.' Tijdens een masterclass die Eyal Sivan in Amsterdam gaf verklaarde een dame verontwaardigd dat Adolf Eichmann in Sivan's documentaire The Specialist niet was afgebeeld als het vlees geworden kwaad. Toen ik hem een reactie daarop vroeg, antwoordde hij:
Ze maakte een vergissing, en dat komt omdat ze net als zoveel anderen gevangen zit in cliché beelden. Ik heb hem wel degelijk geportretteerd als het kwaad, maar niet via het ‘romantische’ beeld van het kwaad, zoals dat doorgaans in films en op het toneel getoond wordt, als een duivel. Het kwaad bij Eichmann was de absolute correctheid, was het normale aan hem, niet het psychopathische, dat bezat hij niet. Het kwaad bij hem was het niet nadenken, het klakkeloos uitvoeren van bevelen, zoals miljoenen anderen dit ook doen. Hij was een bureaucraat, een uitvoerder van bevelen. Wat ik in de documentaire heb gedaan is Eichmann terugplaatsen in de normaliteit, ik heb hem weer een mens gemaakt. Eichmann was een beambte die met papieren schoof, telefoneerde en telexte, een troubleshooter, hij was de productiemanager van de genocide, een punctuele organisator, ordelijk, toegewijd, altijd en eeuwig loyaal, zonder enig charisma, maar wel met een groot talent voor het zo efficiënt mogelijk laten transporteren van ‘biologisch materiaal’. Het echt gruwelijke aan hem was dat hij geen monster maar een spiegel is, waarin we de industriële samenleving weerspiegelt zien. Hij was geenszins het klassieke gezicht van het kwaad. Rony Brauman, met wie ik het script schreef, en ik probeerden aan de hand van de originele opnamen van het proces duidelijk te maken dat Eichmann een modern mens was, in staat zich telkens weer aan te passen. Een gespleten mens, die zijn geweten kon uitschakelen zodra dit noodzakelijk was. Wanneer het ‘materiaal’ afgeleverd was dan onderging het ‘een speciale behandeling’ waarmee hij het niet eens was. Maar aangezien hij niet verantwoordelijk was voor dat deel van het productieproces vond hij zichzelf niet bevoegd zich daarover uit te spreken. Eichmann zag zichzelf als een klein schakeltje in een groot proces dat een doel diende die hij niet had bepaald maar zijn hoogste superieuren. Hij deed alleen zijn werk, de man was niet bloeddorstig, integendeel hij kon zelfs niet tegen het zien van bloed. En ondertussen was hij medeverantwoordelijk voor de industriële massamoord. Zonder zijn toegewijde inzet was dit allemaal niet mogelijk geweest. Hij was blij en trots als zijn werk goed verliep. Desondanks blijkt uit niets dat deze SS’er een fanatieke ideoloog was, of een overtuigde nazi, Mein Kampf had hij slechts doorgebladerd. Het moderne kwaad is niet spectaculair, het is het niet nadenken over de consequenties van daden. Eichmann verplaatste zich niet in de ander, in zijn slachtoffers. ‘Gespaltenheit’ noemde hij dat zelf. Juist het feit dat dit een veel voorkomende doodnormale houding is, maakt het zo angstaanjagend.
Eichmann werd onmiddellijk alom afgeschilderd als het absolute kwaad omdat hij niet mocht gaan lijken op een doorsnee westerling. Dan komt het te dichtbij, en kunnen we niet meer onszelf wijs maken dat wij niet zo zijn. In potentie lopen er miljoenen Eichmannen rond, die zodra de tijd rijp is aan de slag gaan, gehoorzaam hun werk zullen doen. Overal functioneert dit mensentype, in Israel, in Nederland, in de Verenigde Staten. De bureaucraat, de conformist, dat is de hedendaagse vorm van het kwaad. En dat beeld is voor de meeste burgers onacceptabel. Vandaar dat die mevrouw erop bleef hameren dat wij Eichmann veel meer als een duivel hadden moeten portretteren. De dader past alleen als buitenstaander in het mens- en wereldbeeld dat de pers van het bestaan geeft. De dader is de onbegrijpelijke ander, het vlees geworden kwaad. Daarentegen is het slachtoffer het gekoesterde zelf. Die zwart/wit voorstelling van de werkelijkheid is evenwel een vertekening, zoals iedereen die er enkele minuten over nadenkt kan begrijpen. Maar omdat het slachtoffer in een klemmende behoefte aan onschuld voorziet, wordt de werkelijkheid genegeerd.
De uiteenzetting van Eyal Sivan laat zien dat moderne bureaucraten als Eichmann en Van Walsum niet het vleesgeworden kwaad zijn, maar juist de banaliteit ervan. Dit slag uitvoerders van bevelen lijdt aan de ziekte van de gedachteloosheid. Deze mensen kunnen zich niet het leed van anderen voorstellen. Wel het eigen leed, want als één van zijn vier kinderen was vermoord, dan zou Van Walsum voor eeuwig getekend blijven door het verdriet daarover. Die houding toont zijn ziekelijke 'gespletenheid.'
Aren't the deaths of half a million children mass destruction?
Peter van Walsum: I don't think you can use that argument to convince me.
Als vanzelf komen we weer uit bij de opiniemakers van de mainstream media, en bij ondermeer Fokke Obbema's onderhuids verlangen naar echt vuurwerk, naar een confrontatie met Rusland om de Russen een lesje te leren. Dat verlangen verraadt de kenmerken van een 'persoonlijkheidsstoornis' waarvan de symptomen ondermeer zijn: egocentrisme, gebrek aan schuldgevoel, de hunkering naar het overweldigende, gebrek aan empathy, impulsiviteit, gedachteloosheid, onverschilligheid, en de behoefte aan kicks. Vandaar ook dat de mainstream journalistiek massaal geweld van de Amerikanen kunnen steunen en zelfs propageren, bewondering kunnen hebben voor excessief spierballenvertoon, gehoorzaam kunnen zijn aan de machtigen. Ik stel hierbij met nadruk dat deze mensen geen monsters zijn, maar 'crackpot realists,' zoals de grote Amerikaanse socioloog C. Wright Mills hen noemde. Malloten beheerst door 'the kind of short-run thinking that cannot reconsider an existing policy, no matter how disastrous.' De moord op tenminste een half miljoen Iraakse kinderen is voor een dergelijk iemand geen 'argument dat mij overtuigd' om een genocidale politiek ogenblikkelijk te stoppen. En waarom niet? Simpelweg omdat de interne logica van het geweld voor hem of haar belangrijker is dan al het andere. Het is 'rationalisme zonder rede,' dat in zijn meest spectaculaire vorm tot uiting kwam in de Mutual Assured Destruction:
Mutual assured destruction (MAD, gegarandeerde wederzijdse vernietiging) is de militaire strategie die ervan uitgaat dat een gebruik van nucleaire wapens op grote schaal door een van twee zijden in een oorlog zou resulteren in de vernietiging van zowel de aanvaller als de verdediger. Het is gebaseerd op het idee dat het dreigen met zware wapens nodig is om te voorkomen dat de ander diezelfde wapens gebruikt. Vooral tijdens de Koude Oorlog werd van de MAD-strategie gebruikgemaakt.
Hoewel deze logica volkomen absurd is, en de logica is van een ziekelijke persoonlijkheid zonder enige empathie, werd deze doctrine van de NAVO en het voormalige Warschaupact via de massamedia verkocht als een verantwoorde politiek. Ook dit verraadt hoe de mainstream media in handen van gevaarlijke dwazen zijn terecht gekomen. Als men ervan uitgaat dat de vijand koste wat kost vernietigd moet worden dan geldt er geen ratio meer, geen recht, geen beschaving, dan is er slechts sprake van Joseph Goebbels' 'logica' van 'den totalen Krieg.' Daar komt de ingeboren haat tegen de cultuur nog bij. In dit verband wees de Canadese auteur Michael Ignatieff terecht op
the force of male resentment that has been accumulated through the centuries of gradual European pacification. The history of our civilization is the history of the confiscation of the means of violence by the state.
Die ontwikkeling bevordert het verlangen bij een bepaald slag mannen naar grootschalig geweld. Het is de enige manier waarop ze hun eigen onvermogen en hun haat tegen de beschaving vorm kunnen geven, een haat die volgens Freud voortkomt uit het onbehagen tegen de cultuur. Een beangstigend hoog aantal politici en journalisten is daarvan een perfecte illustratie. Bovendien wordt
the joy of killing strengthened... if the 'enemy' is distant and impersonal. Since injury comes to us from remote sources we must find a remote victim on which to wreak our vengeance,'
aldus de Amerikaanse socioloog Philip Slater, die de ressentimenten van een substantieel deel van de bevolking ziet als bron waaruit de behoefte voortkomt naar wraak via technologische vernietiging van anderen en uiteindelijk van zichzelf. Hoe gefrustreerder de man des te meer hij verlangt naar vernietiging. Dit slag mensen
love their machines more than life itself -- more even than their children, toward whom... feelings of adoration and resentment are in precarious balance. (Slater)
In zijn boek Blood and Belonging (1993) concludeert Ignatieff tenslotte:
I began the journey as a liberal, and I end as one, but I cannot help thinking that liberal civilization -- the rule of laws not men, of argument in place of force, of compromise in place of violence -- runs deeply against the human grain and is achieved and sustained only by the most unremitting struggle against human nature.
Deze reflex, impuls, dit instinct, deze drift zien we zowel bij geschoolden als ongeschoolden, zowel bij machtigen als machtelozen, zowel bij de intelligentsia als de massa, zowel bij rijken als armen. Ignatieff heeft gelijk, de alles vernietigende instincten nemen het op den duur over bij mensen, met voorop mannen, die 'are mad with fear or mad with vengeance.'
Peter van Walsum: 'Visitekaartje.'
John Pilger: Aren't the deaths of half a million children mass destruction?
Peter van Walsum: I don't think you can use that argument to convince me.
America’s Advancing Empire: Putsch, Pillage and Duplicity
Global Research, March 09, 2014
Url of this article:
The Obama regime, in coordination with its allies and proxies, has re-launched a virulent world-wide campaign to destroy independent governments, encircle and ultimately, undermine global competitors, and establish a new US – EU centered world order.
We will proceed by identifying the recent ‘cycles’ of US empire-building; the advances and retreats; the methods and strategies; the results and perspectives. Our main focus is on the imperial dynamics driving the US toward greater military confrontations, up to and including conditions which can lead to a world war.
Recent Imperial Cycles
US empire-building has not been a linear process. The recent decades provide ample evidence of contradictory experiences. Summarily we can identify several phases in which empire-building has experienced broad advances and sharp setbacks – with certain caveats. We are looking at global processes, in which there are also limited counter-tendencies: In the midst of large-scale imperial advances, particular regions, countries or movements successfully resisted or even reversed the imperial thrust. Secondly, the cyclical nature of empire-building in no way puts in doubt the imperial character of the state and economy and its relentless drive to dominate, exploit and accumulate. Thirdly, the methods and strategy directing each imperial advance differ according to changes among targeted countries.
Over the past thirty years we can identify three phases in empire-building.
Imperial Advance 1980’s to 2000
In the period roughly from the mid-1980’s to the year 2000, empire-building expanded on a global scale.
(A). Imperial Expansion in the former Communist regions
The US and EU penetrated and hegemonized Eastern Europe; disintegrated and pillaged Russia and the USSR; privatized and denationalized hundreds of billions of dollars worth of public enterprises, mass media outlets and banks; incorporated military bases throughout Eastern Europe into NATO and established satellite regimes as willing accomplices in imperial conquests in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
(B). Imperial Expansion in Latin America
Beginning from the early 1980's to the end of the century, empire-building advanced throughout Latin America under the formula of “free markets and free elections”.
From Mexico to Argentina, empire-centered, neo-liberal regimes privatized and denationalized over 5,000 public enterprises and banks, benefiting US and European multi-nationals. Political leaders lined up with the US in international forums. Latin American generals responded favorably to US-centered military operations. Bankers extracted billions in debt payments and laundered many billions more in illicit money. The US-centered, continent-wide “North American Free Trade Agreement” appeared to advance according to schedule.
(C).Imperial Advances in Asia and Africa
Communist and nationalist regimes shed their leftist and anti-imperialist policies and opened their societies and economies to capitalist penetration. In Africa, two key “leftist” countries, Angola and post-apartheid South Africa adopted “free market policies”.
In Asia, China and Indo-China moved decisively toward capitalist development strategies; foreign investment, privatizations and intense exploitation of labor replaced collectivist egalitarianism and anti-imperialism. India, and other state-directed capitalist countries, like South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, liberalized their economies. Imperial advances were accompanied by greater economic volatility, a sharpening of the class struggle and an opening of the electoral process to accommodate competing capitalist factions.
Empire-building expanded under the slogan of “free markets and fair elections” – markets dominated by giant multi-nationals and elections, which assured elite successes.
Imperial Retreat and Reverses: 2000-2008
The brutal costs of the advance of empire led to a global counter-tendency, a wave of anti-neoliberal uprisings and military resistance to US invasions. Between 2000 – 2008 empire-building was under siege and in retreat.
Russia and China Challenge the Empire
US empire-building ceased to expand and conquer in two strategic regions: Russia and Asia. Under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, the Russian state was reconstructed; pillage and disintegration was reversed. The economy was harnessed to domestic development. The military was integrated into a system of national defense and security. Russia once again became a major player in regional and international politics.
China’s turn toward capitalism was accompanied by a dynamic state presence and a direct role in promoting double digit growth for two decades: China becoming the second largest economy in the world, displacing the US as the major trading partner in Asia and Latin America. The US economic empire was in retreat.
Latin America: The End of the Neo-Liberal Empire
Neo-liberalism and US-centered ‘integration’ led to pillage, economic crises and major popular upheavals, leading to the ascendancy of new center-left and left regimes. ‘Post neo-liberal’ administrations emerged in Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Central America and Uruguay. US empire-builders suffered several strategic defeats.
The US effort to secure a continent-wide free trade agreement fell apart and was replaced by regional integration organizations that excluded the US and Canada. In its place, Washington signed bi-lateral agreements with Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Panama and Peru.
Latin America diversified its markets in Asia and Europe: China replaced the US as its main trading partner. Extractive development strategies and high commodity prices financed greater social spending and political independence.
Selective nationalizations, increased state regulation and debt renegotiations weakened US leverage over the Latin American economies. Venezuela, under President Hugo Chavez successfully challenged US hegemony in the Caribbean via regional organizations. Caribbean economies achieved greater independence and economic viability through membership in PETROCARIBE, a program through which they received petrol from Venezuela at subsidized prices. Central American and Andean countries increased security and trade via the regional organization, ALBA. Venezuela provided an alternative development model to the US-centered neo-liberal approach, in which earnings from the extractive economy financed large-scale social programs.
From the end of the Clinton Administration to the end of the Bush Administration, the economic empire was in retreat. The empire lost Asian and Latin American markets to China. Latin America gained greater political independence. The Middle East became ‘contested terrain’. A revised and stronger Russian state opposed further encroachments on its borders. Military resistance and defeats in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Lebanon challenged US dominance.
Imperial Offensive: Obama’s Advances the Empire
The entire period of the Obama regime has been taken up with reversing the retreat of empire-building. To that end Obama has developed a primarily military strategy (1) confrontation and encircling China and Russia, (2) undermining and overthrowing independent governments in Latin America and re-imposing neo-liberal client regimes, and (3) launching covert and overt military assaults on independent regimes everywhere.
The empire-building offensive of the 21st century differs from that of the previous decade in several crucial ways: Neo-liberal economic doctrines are discredited and electorates are not so easily convinced of the beneficence of falling under US hegemony. In other words, empire-builders cannot rely on diplomacy, elections and free market propaganda to expand their imperial reach as they did in the 1990’s.
To reverse the retreat and advance 21st century empire-building, Washington realized it had to rely on force and violence. The Obama regime allocated billions of dollars to finance arms for mercenaries, salaries for street fighters and campaign expenses for electoral clients engaged in destabilization campaigns. Diplomatic duplicity and broken agreements replaced negotiated settlements – on a grand scale.
Throughout the Obama period not a single imperial advance was secured via elections, diplomatic agreements or political negotiations. The Obama Presidency sought and secured the massification of global spy network (NSA) and the almost daily murder of political adversaries via drones and other means. Covert killer operations under the US Special Forces expanded throughout the world. Obama assumed dictatorial prerogatives, including the power to order the arbitrary assassination of U.S. citizens.
The unfolding of the Obama regime’s global effort to stem the imperial retreat and re-launch empire-building “pivoted” almost exclusively on military instruments: armed proxies, aerial assaults, coups and violent putschist power grabs. Thugs, mobs, Islamist terrorists, Zionist militarists and a medley of retrograde separatist assassins were the tools of imperial advance. The choice of imperial proxies varied according to time and political circumstances.
Confronting and Degrading China: Military Encirclement and Economic Exclusion
Faced with the loss of markets and the challenges of China as a global competitor, Washington developed two major lines of attack: 1. An economic strategy designed to deepen the integration of Asian and Latin America countries in a free trade pact that excludes China (the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement); and 2. Pentagon-designed military plan Air-Sea Battle , which targets China’s mainland with a full-scale air and missile assault if Washington’s current strategy of controlling China’s commercial maritime lifeline fails (FT, 2/10/14). While an offensive military strategy is still on the Pentagon’s drawing board, the Obama regime is building up its maritime armada a few short miles off China’s coast , expanding its military bases in the Philippines, Australia and Japan and tightening the noose around China’s strategic maritime routes for vital imports like oil, gas and raw materials.
The US is actively promoting an Indo-Japanese military alliance as part of its strategy of military encirclement of China. Joint military maneuvers, high-level military coordination and meetings between Japanese and Indian military officials are seen by the Pentagon as strategic advances in isolating China and reinforcing the US stranglehold on China’s maritime routes to the Middle East, Southeast Asia and beyond. India, according to one of India’s leading weeklies, is viewed “as a junior partner of the US. The Indian Navy is fast becoming the chief policeman of the Indian Ocean and the Indian military’s dependence on the U.S. military-industrial complex is increasing...” (Economic and Political Weekly (Mumbai), 2/15/14, p. 9. The US is also escalating its support for violent separatist movements in China, namely the Tibetans, Uighurs and other Islamists. Obama’s meeting with the Dali Lama was emblematic of Washington’s efforts to foment internal unrest.
The gross political intervention of outgoing U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke in domestic Chinese politics is an indication that diplomacy is not the Obama regime’s prime policy instrument when it comes to dealing with China. Ambassador Locke openly met with Uighur and Tibetan separatists and publicly disparaged China’s economic success and political system while openly encouraging opposition politics (FT, 2/28/14, p. 2).
The Obama regime’s attempt to advance empire in Asia via military confrontation and trade pacts, which exclude China, has led China to build-up its military capacity to avoid maritime strangulation. China answers the US trade threat by advancing its productive capacity, diversifying its trade relations, increasing its ties with Russia and deepening its domestic market.
To date, the Obama regime’s reckless militarization of the Pacific has not led to an open break in relations with China, but the military road to advancing empire at China’s expense threatens a global economic catastrophe or worse, a world war.
Imperial Advance: Isolating, Encircling and Degrading Russia
With the advent of President Vladimir Putin and the reconstitution of the Russian state and economy, the U.S. lost a vassal client and source of plundered wealth. Washington’s empire-builders continued to seek Russian ‘cooperation and collaboration’ in undermining independent states, isolating China and pursuing its colonial wars. The Russian state, under Putin and Medvedev, had sought to accommodate U.S. empire builders via negotiated agreements, which would enhance Russia’s position in Europe, recognize Russian strategic borders and acknowledge Russian security concerns. However, Russian diplomacy secured few and transitory gains while the US and EU made major gains with Russian complicity and passivity.
The un-stated agenda of Washington, especially with Obama’s drive to re-launch a new wave of imperial conquests, was to undermine Russia’s re-emergence as a major player in world politics. The strategic idea was to isolate Russia, weaken its growing international presence and return it to the vassal status of the Yeltsin period, if possible.
From the US - EU takeover of Eastern Europe , the Balkans and Baltic states, and their transformation into NATO military bases and capitalist vassal states in the early 1990’s, to the penetration and pillage of Russia during the Yeltsin years, the prime purpose of Western policy has been to establish a unipolar empire under US domination.
The EU and the US proceeded to dismember Yugoslavia into subservient mini-states. They then bombed Serbia in order to carve off Kosovo, destroying one of the few independent countries still allied with Russia. The U.S. then moved on to foment uprisings in Georgia, Ukraine and Chechnya. They bombed, invaded and later occupied Iraq – a former Russian ally in the Gulf region.
The driving strategy of US policy was to encircle and reduce Russia to the status of a weak, marginal power, and to undermine Vladimir Putin’s efforts to restore Russia’s position as a regional power. In 2008 Washington’s puppet regime in Georgia, tested the mettle of the Russian state by launching an assault on South Ossetia, killing at least 10 Russian peacekeepers and wounding hundreds (not to mention thousands of civilians). Then-Russian President Medvedev responded by sending the Russian armed forces to repel Georgian troops and support the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
U.S. diplomatic agreements with Russia had been asymmetrical – Russia was to acquiesce in Western expansion in exchange for ‘political acceptance’. Duplicity trumped open-diplomacy. Despite agreements to the contrary, U.S. bases and missile installations were established throughout Eastern Europe, pointing at Russia, under the pretext that they were “really targeting Iran”. Even as Russia protested that post-Cold War agreements were breached, the Empire ignored Moscow’s complaints and encirclement advanced.
In a further diplomatic disaster, Russia and China signed off on a U.S.-authored United Nations Security Council agreement to allow NATO to engage in “humanitarian overflights” in Libya. NATO immediately took this as the ‘green light’ for attack and converted ‘humanitarian intervention’ into a devastating aerial bombing campaign that led to the overthrow of Libya’s legitimate government and the destruction of Libya as viable, independent North African state. By signing the ‘humanitarian’ UN agreement, Russia and China lost a friendly government and trading partner in Africa! Even earlier, the Russians had agreed to allow the US to transport weapons and troops through Russian Federation territory to support the US invasion of Afghanistan ... with no reciprocal gain (except perhaps an even greater flood of Afghan heroin).
Russian diplomats agreed to US (Zionist)-authored UN economic sanctions against Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program ... undermining a political ally and lucrative market. Moscow believed that by backing US sanctions on Iran and granting transport routes to Afghanistan in late 2001 they would receive some ‘security guarantees’ from the Americans regarding the separatist movements in the Caucuses. The U.S. ‘reciprocated’ by further backing Chechen separatist leaders exiled in the US despite the on-going terror campaigns against Russian civilians – up to and even after the Chechen slaughter of hundreds of school children and teachers in Beslan in 2004....
With the US under Obama advancing its encirclement of Russia in Eurasia and its isolation in North Africa and the Middle East, Putin finally decided to draw a line by backing Russia’s only remaining ally in the Middle East, Syria. Putin sought to secure a negotiated end to the Western-Gulf Monarchist-backed mercenary invasion of Damascus. To little avail: The US and EU increased arms shipments, military trainers and financing to the 30,000 Islamist mercenaries based in Jordan as they engaged in cross-border attacks to overthrow the Syrian government.
Washington and Brussels continued their imperial push toward the Russian heartland by organizing and financing a violent seizure of power (putsch) in western Ukraine. The Obama regime financed a coalition of armed neo-Nazi street fighters and neo-liberal politicos, to the tune of $5 billion dollars, to overthrow the elected regime. The putschists then moved to end Crimean autonomy and break long-standing military treaty agreements with Russia. Under enormous pressure from the autonomous Crimean government and the vast majority of the population and facing the critical loss of its naval and military facilities on the Black Sea, Putin, finally, forcefully moved Russian troops into a defensive mode in Crimea.
The Obama regime launched a series of aggressive moves against Russia to isolate it and to buttress it faltering puppet regime in Kiev: economic sanctions and expulsions were the order of the day ... Obama’s seizure of the Ukraine signaled the start of a ‘new Cold War’. The seizure of the Ukraine was part of Obama’s grand ongoing strategy of advancing empire.
The Ukraine power grab signaled the biggest geo-political challenge to the continued existence of the Russian state. Obama seeks to extend and deepen the imperial sweep across Europe to the Caucuses: the violent regime coup and subsequent defense of the puppet regime in Kiev are key elements in undermining a key adversary– Russia.
After pretending to ‘partner’ with Russia, while slicing off Russian allies in the Balkans and Mid-East over the previous decades, Obama made his most audacious and reckless move. Casting off all pretexts of peaceful co-existence and mutual accommodation, the Obama regime broke a power-sharing agreement with Russia over Ukrainian governance and backed the neo-Nazi putsch.
The Obama regime assumed that having secured Russia’s earlier acquiescence in the face of advancing US imperial power in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the Gulf region, Washington’s empire-builders made the fateful decision to test Russia in its most strategic geopolitical region, one directly affecting the Russian people and its most strategic military assets. Russia reacted in the only language understood in Washington and Brussels: with a major military mobilization. Obama’s advance of ‘empire-building via salami tactics’ and duplicitous diplomacy was nearing an end.
Advancing Empire in the Middle East and Latin America
The imperial advance of the 1990’s came to an end by the middle of the first decade of the new millennium. Defeats in Afghanistan, withdrawal from Iraq, the demise of puppet regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, election losses in the Ukraine and the defeat and demise of pro-U.S. neo-liberal regimes in Latin America were exacerbated by a deepening economic crisis in the imperial centers of Europe and Wall Street.
Obama had few economic and political options to advance the empire. Yet his regime was determined to end the retreat and advance the empire; he resorted to tactics and strategies more akin to 19th century colonial and 20th century totalitarian regimes.
The methods were violent- militarism was the policy pivot. But at a time of domestic imperial exhaustion, new military tactics replaced large-scale ground force invasions. Proxy-armed mercenaries took center stage in overthrowing regimes targeted by the US. Political and ideological affinities were subsumed under the generic euphemism of “rebels”. The mass media alternated between pressuring for greater military escalation and endorsing the existing level of imperial warfare. The entire political spectrum in Europe and the US shifted rightward – even as the majority of the electorate rejected new military engagements, especially ground wars.
Obama escalated troops in Afghanistan, launched an air war that overthrew President Gadhafi and turned the Libya into a broken, failed state. Proxy wars became the new strategy to advance imperial empire-building. Syria was targeted – tens of thousands of Islamist extremists were recruited and funded by imperial regimes and despotic Gulf monarchies. Millions of refugees fled, tens of thousands were killed.
In Latin America, Obama backed the military coup in Honduras overthrowing the elected Liberal government of President Manuel Zelaya, he recognized a congressional coup ousting the elected center-left government in Paraguay while refusing to recognize the election victory of President Maduro in Venezuela. In the face of Maduro’s win in Venezuela, Washington backed several months of mob street violence in an attempt to destabilize the country.
In the Ukraine, Egypt, Venezuela and Thailand, ‘the street’ replaced elections. Obama’s strategic imperial goals have focused on the re-conquest and pillage of Russia and its return to the vassal status of the Boris Yeltsin years, Latin America’s return to the neo-liberal regimes of 1990’s and China to the submissiveness of the 1980’s. The imperial strategy has been ‘to conquer from within’ setting the stage for domination from the outside.
Advancing Empire: Israel and the Middle East Detour
One of the great historical paradoxes of the U.S. imperial retreat of the 21st century has been the role played by influence of Israel and its Zionist Fifth Column embedded within the U.S. political power structure. Washington’s wars and sanctions in the Middle East have been largely at the behest of influential ‘Israel Firsters’ in the White House, Pentagon, Treasury and National Security Council and Congress.
It was largely because the US was engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that Washington “neglected” China’s growing economic prowess. By concentrating on ‘wars for Israel’ in the Middle East, the U.S. has not been in a position to challenge the rise of nationalism and populism in Latin America. Protracted ‘wars for Israel’ have exhausted the US economy and the American public’s enthusiasm for new ground wars elsewhere.
Zionist ideologues, dubbed “neo-conservatives”, were instrumental in shaping the global militarist approach to empire-building and marginalizing the market-driven empire building, favored by the multi-nationals and giant extractive industry.
Obama’s attempt to halt the retreat of empire caused by Zionist militarism has not borne fruit: His effort to co-opt Zionists and pressure Israel to stop fomenting new wars in the Middle East is a failure. His ‘pivot to Asia’ has turned into a strategy of brute military encirclement of China. His overtures to Iran have been stymied by the Zionist power bloc in Congress and the imposition of Israeli-dictated terms of negotiations. The entire “advance of the empire-building project”, which was to define the Obama legacy, has been weakened by the enormous cost of heeding the advice and directives of the Israel-loyalists within his Administration. Israel, one of the most brutal colonial powers, has paradoxically and unintentionally played a major role in undermining Obama’s efforts to reverse the decline of empire and advance the U.S. diplomatic and economic dimensions of empire-building
Results and Perspectives: Advancing Empire in the Post Neo-Liberal Period
Obama’s reckless effort to advance empire in the second decade of the 21st century is far more dangerous than his predecessors in the late 20th century. Russia has recovered. It is not the disintegrating state that Bush and Clinton dismembered and pillaged. China is no longer a rising market economy so eager to trade with the US while overlooking American incursions into Chinese territorial waters. Today China is a major economic power, wielding economic leverage in the form of $3 Trillion in U.S. Treasury notes. China no longer tolerates U.S. interference in its domestic politics- it is willing to crack down on U.S.-backed ethnic separatists and terrorists.
Latin America, including Venezuela, have developed autonomous regional organizations, diversified their markets to Asia and established a powerful post-neoliberal consensus. Venezuela has turned its military, once the favorite instrument of US-engineered coups, into a bulwark of the existing democratic order.
The electoral road to US empire-building has been closed or requires tight imperial “supervision” to secure “favorable outcomes”. Washington’s new policy of choice is violence: enlisting mob action, mercenary extremists, Islamists and Uighur terrorists, neo-Nazis and the riff raff of the world in its service.
The balance sheet of six years of “advancing empire” under Obama is in doubt. The violent overthrow of President Gadhafi did not lead to a stable client regime: the utter destruction and chaos in Libya has undercut the imperial presence. Syria is under attack but by anti-Western Islamist fanatics. The defeat of Assad will not ‘advance empire’ as much as it will expand radical Islamist (including Al Qaeda) power.
The Ukraine puppet regime of neo-liberals and neo-Nazis is literally bankrupt, riven with internal conflicts and facing profound regional divisions. Russia is threatened, but their leaders have taken decisive military action to defend their Crimean allies and strategic military bases.
Obama has provoked and threatened adversaries but has not secured much in terms of valuable allies or clients. His effort to replicate the imperial advances of the 1990’s has failed because the relationships of power between Europe and Russia, Japan and China, and Venezuela and Colombia have changed. Proxies, predator drones and the US Special Forces are not able to reverse the retreat. The economic crisis has cut too deep; the domestic exhaustion with empire is too pervasive. The cost of sustaining Israel is too high. Advancing empire in these circumstances is a dangerous game: it risks a larger nuclear war to overcome adversity and retreat.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
Maar al deze informatie verzwijgen de Obbema's van de mainstream pers. Ze weten exact wat ze wel en wat ze niet kunnen berichten. Decennialang heb ik ze van nabij zien scharrelen. Later meer hierover.
Maar al deze informatie verzwijgen de Obbema's van de mainstream pers. Ze weten exact wat ze wel en wat ze niet kunnen berichten. Decennialang heb ik ze van nabij zien scharrelen. Later meer hierover.
RSS FeedCapitalism Will Prevent a Cold War Over Ukraine
Soldiers outside a Ukranian border guard post in the Crimean town of Balaclava, March 1, 2014. (Reuters/Baz Ratner)
Plain, old-fashioned capitalism will prevent a new cold war between the United States and Russia over Ukraine and Russia’s gobbling up of the Crimean region. Capitalism, plus the fact that probably not one American in a thousand could locate Crimea on a map, and even the most hard-headed US political analysts have trouble coming up with a decent definition of what US interests in Ukraine might be.
Helping to contain the crisis is the fact that Russia, Europe and to a lesser extent the United States are tied together in a powerful web of financial and economic ties that didn’t exist, say, during the real Cold War. Their influence runs counter to the many, many cries from hawks to impose tough economic sanctions on Russia, as if the giant Eurasian power were a small “rogue state.” The Washington Post, for instance, said in an editorial:
Some argue that the West lacks the means to damage the Putin regime or that the United States cannot act without Europe, but neither claim is true. Banking sanctions—denying Russians and their banks access to the U.S. financial system—could deal a powerful blow. Mr. Obama must respond to Mr. Putin with measures that force the Russian ruler to rethink his options.
But, as CNN reports:
Russia is the European Union’s third-biggest trading partner after the United States and China, with goods and services worth more than $500 billion exchanged in 2012. About 75% of all foreign direct investment in Russia originates in EU member states, according to the European Commission.In addition, Russia is the single biggest supplier of energy to the European Union. British energy firm BP is the second-largest shareholder in Russia’s leading oil producer Rosneft, and some of the biggest energy companies in Germany, the Netherlands and France are invested in a joint venture with Russian gas giant Gazprom.
And, in a lengthy interview in The American Interest, Zbigniew Brzezinski points with regret to the fact that British bankers, who have large deposits of Russian cash—particularly from Russian oligarchs—are resisting any sort of confrontation over Ukraine:
The British seem inclined to argue, “Well, there’s a lot of Russian money in our banks.”… The bankers doubtless have a lot of influence, particularly in political systems in which money is increasingly the mechanism that oils the “democratic process.”
Earlier, the BBC had reported that a document carried by a top British official read: “The U.K. should not support for now trade sanctions or close London’s financial center to Russians.”
The New York Times, in a long March 7 piece analyzing US and European business interests in Russia and their effect on the politics of the situation, quoted several executives with Western firms who clearly want to cool the crisis talk:
European businesses “have no interests in any deterioration of the current international situation linked to Ukraine,” Frank Schauff, the chief executive of the Association of European Businesses in Russia, said on Friday. “We call upon all parties to engage in a constructive dialogue, which will secure stability, welfare and economic growth on the European Continent.”
Among American companies cited in the Times are Pepsi, Ford and John Deere. The Timesquoted Ken Golden, director of global public relations for Deere, in its piece:
While Russia represents less than 5 percent of Deere’s total equipment sales, the company recently cited Russia as being key to its future growth. “We urge political leaders to solve this issue without violence and in accord with international agreements,” Mr. Golden said.
It even extends to the defense industry. According to Defense News, in a piece titled “Amid Ukraine Crisis, EU Plays It Safe,” various European arms manufacturers, including in Sweden, value current and potential sales to Russia. France is apparently insisting that it will continue to sell arms to Russia, including a $1.7 billion deal for two Mistral-class helicopter carriers. Said one expert quoted in the piece:
It looks like the Europeans are extremely keen to do everything except anything that hurts their commercial interests. There is zero appetite to hurt business interests, and arms sales fit into that category.
Still, while Vladimir Putin and his nationalist Russian base might believe that ancient monasteries, the Kievan Rus and heaven knows what else justify the illegitimate annexation of Crimea and Russia’s overweening influence in Ukraine, and that Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine need protecting, Moscow’s actions in Ukraine are nearly certain to contribute to a deeper political divide between the United States and Russia. Just as the unilateral US and NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1998–99, the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the US-NATO war against Libya in 2011 all bolstered Russian nationalism and strengthened the Russian military, Russia’s occupation and pending annexation of Crimea will do the same in reverse. Hawks, pro-NATO militants, supporters of building up US military forces and missile-defense systems in Eastern Europe, and critics of President Obama’s defense cuts, will all be aided greatly by Putin’s actions.
Read Next: Conn Hallinan on the dark side of the Ukraine revolt
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten