Blame the US for the Ukraine crisis, bringing the world to the brink of war

[ad_1]

IF the United States tells the Nobel Committee that this CEO of a small internet news company who violated his country’s laws deserves his peace prize more than Julian Assange who told the world about the war crimes of United States, that Greta Thurnberg who woke the world up to the reality of climate change, that a collective of “scientists” who saved the world from a horrific pandemic, then she wins the prize.

After all, the United States is still the world hegemon with the most powerful propaganda apparatus. When he tells the world what he wants to believe, then that’s what the world – at least most of it – believes.

This enormous and incredible power is again demonstrated in the case of the so-called “Ukrainian crisis”, or Russia’s gathering of 100,000 of its soldiers and thousands of its war machines along the border of this country, which, according to the United States, is obviously a preparation by a tyrant to invade the unfortunate country.

The reality is that the United States created this crisis because of its not-so-subtle moves and policies over the past decade to encircle Russia militarily, turning former members and allies of the USSR not only into lackeys of the states United, but potentially his enemies. welcoming them as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

NATO during the Cold War was the US-led military treaty of 16 countries (all Western European countries, including the US) opposed to the USSR, with a provision requiring all its members strike the USSR if ever one were attacked by this federation.

The United States had broken its promises made to the then Russian leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, during the unification of Germany, that it would not accept former members of the USSR as members. Since 1999, NATO, under the orders of the United States, counts among its members 14 countries of Eastern Europe.

Initially, it only concerned the Baltic States. But in 2004, it made former Russian ally Bulgaria and former Soviet republics Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania into NATO members. The US even got Romania in 2005 and Bulgaria in 2006 to accept military base agreements for their forces which served as a model for the one with the Philippines called the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) that Aquino’s 3rd Regime concluded with the United States, terrified of Americans that China would invade the Philippines.

Nicaragua

Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University, wrote two weeks ago in an article in the prestigious Foreign Relations magazine:

“During the Cold War, for example, the Reagan administration was so alarmed by the revolution in Nicaragua (a country with a population smaller than that of New York) that it organized a rebel army to overthrow the socialist Sandinistas. If Americans could only worry about a small country like Nicaragua, why was it so difficult to understand why Russia could have serious doubts about the steady movement of the most powerful alliance in the world? world towards its borders?

“The United States seemed on track to encircle Russia with its own version of ‘satellite’ states when the Bush administration offered NATO membership at the 2008 Bucharest summit, Georgia and the ‘Ukraine – the states closest to Russia in terms of ethnicity and even culture. (Stalin was from Georgia while Ukraine, whose official language is Russian, was part of the USSR from 1922 until at the end of the Cold War, and the site of its nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.)

“Since the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine had pro-Russian prime ministers until Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was ousted after 10 years in power in what was widely seen as a ‘color revolution’, designed He was replaced by a pro-US Prime Minister, who increasingly lured Ukraine to American ambition, giving Russia the excuse to occupy Crimea in 2014, after which 97% of Crimean voters (who were mostly of Russian culture) in a referendum voted to merge the territory with Russia.However, actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine in a landslide vote in 2019. After initially appearing to be pro-Russian, he brought Ukraine closer to the United States under President Trump’s administration and, in April 2019, called Putin an “enemy “. .”

Red line

Putin seems to have drawn the red line, probably thinking the Biden administration was weak. In mid-December 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a series of demands that included a ban on Ukraine joining NATO and a reduction in NATO troops and military equipment. in Eastern Europe to have its military forces withdrawn. That month, more than 100,000 troops were in place near the border and US intelligence officials warned that Russia could be planning an invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.

What prompted the United States to take a bellicose stance against Russia? The same reason he has towards China. Besides the fact that the two powers are the rivals of the United States in the game of superpowers, Harvard professor Walt explains in this article on foreign policy the deep reason why:

“The great tragedy is that this whole thing was preventable. If the United States and its European allies had not succumbed to hubris, wishful thinking and liberal idealism, and instead relied on the ideas fundamentals of realism, the current crisis would not have happened. Indeed, Russia probably never would have seized Crimea, and Ukraine would be safer today. The world is paying a high price for rely on an erroneous theory of world politics.

“At the most basic level, realism begins with the recognition that wars happen because there is no central agency or authority that can protect states from each other and keep them from fighting each other. if they choose to do so. Since war is always a possibility, states compete for power and sometimes use force to try to secure themselves or gain other advantages. There is no way for states to know with certainty what others may do in the future, which makes them reluctant to trust themselves and encourages them to protect themselves against the possibility of another powerful state trying to harm them in some time.

“Liberalism sees world politics differently. Instead of seeing all the great powers facing more or less the same problem – the need to be secure in a world where war is always possible – liberalism argues that what the great powers do States is primarily driven by their internal characteristics and He divides the world into “good states” (those that embody liberal values) and “bad states” (virtually everyone else) and argues that conflicts arise primarily from the aggressive impulses of autocrats, dictators and For liberals, the solution is to overthrow tyrants and spread democracy, markets and institutions based on the belief that democracies do not fight each other, especially when bound by the trade, investment and an agreed set of rules.

Realism

“After the Cold War, Western elites concluded that realism was no longer relevant and that liberal ideals should guide the conduct of foreign policy. no place in the modern world and an emerging liberal order would produce several decades of democratic peace.

“If this rosy view had been accurate, the spread of democracy and the extension of American security guarantees into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence would have posed little risk. But that outcome was unlikely, like any good realist could have told you. Indeed, opponents of enlargement were quick to warn that Russia would inevitably view NATO enlargement as a threat and that going ahead would poison relations with Moscow. .

“Enlargement supporters won the debate, saying it would help consolidate the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe and create a ‘vast zone of peace’ across Europe. According to them, it didn’t matter that some of NATO’s new members had little or no military value to the alliance and might be difficult to defend because the peace would be so strong and lasting that any promises to protect these new allies would never have to be honored.

“Furthermore, they insisted that NATO’s benevolent intentions were evident and that it would be easy to persuade Moscow not to worry as NATO moved closer to the Russian border. view was naïve in the extreme, because the key question was not what NATO’s intentions were. What really mattered, of course, was what the Russian leadership thought they were or could be at the future. Even if the Russian leadership could have been convinced that NATO had no malicious intentions, they could never be sure that this would always be the case.”

Replace “Russia” with “China” and you will understand all the American propaganda and its movements towards this superpower in the South China Sea.

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao

Twitter: @bobitiglao

Archives: www.rigobertotiglao.com

Book orders: www.rigobertoticlao.com/shop

[ad_2]