Tuesday, March 18, 2014

The Hypocrisies Keep Piling Up Thick and Fast In Ukraine “Crisis”

Well, as expected, the residents of Crimea voted to break away from Ukraine (now ruled by a mob-installed and foreign-controlled government) and become an independent nation, presumably in advance of rejoining Russia, which it was part of from the 1700s until around 1954. The U.S. and its European helpmates dutifully denounced the referendum yet again as “illegitimate” and “illegal” and contrary to the Ukraine Constitution (they apparently consider the mob overthrow of the previous elected president of Ukraine, and the choosing of the new “leader” of Ukraine by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, as Constitutional) and announced their refusal to recognize it. [1]

Obama has ordered the assets of top Putin aides frozen, and those of members of the Duma (Russian Parliament), and of Ukrainians who spoke in favor of secession, as punishment for their actions and advocacy. The U.S. can do this since it controls the world financial system. [2]

Since it doesn't control the world financial system, Russia can't freeze the assets of John Kerry, or Victoria Nuland, or John McCain, for destabilizing the elected government of Ukraine and replacing it with people more to their liking, and for stirring up opposition in Kiev to self-determination for Ukrainians who didn't support the mob coup.

Much has been made of the Tatars, indeed they've received more attention in Western media than the rest of the Crimean population. By the way, the Tatars are 12% of Crimeans, according to that same media (a fact deeply buried in long articles). We're reminded over and over that Stalin deported the Tatars during World War II. Not mentioned much is that this was because 9,000 Tatars joined the Nazi invaders to fight with them in the attempt to destroy the Soviet Union. (In fact, if the Germans had won, the Tatars probably would have ended up being exterminated, as Hitler's plan was to murder three fourths of the “subhuman Slav” population of the S.U. upon victory. I doubt if he held Tatars in high regard.) After the war, the Tatars were allowed to return. Whether or not this mass deportation was prudent and justified during a nation's struggle for its very survival or an unacceptable violation of human rights is something that can be debated. [3]

By the way, the Tatars weren't the only population internally exiled during that war. The Japanese-Americans of the U.S. west coast were forcibly deported to internal concentration camps, lined with barbed wire and guarded by watch towers with machine guns. They lost all their property, for which they were never compensated. The number of Japanese-Americans who joined the Japanese armed forces after Pearl Harbor totals, as far as I know, ZERO.

The words “self-determination” are taboo in Western media discussion of the “crisis.” Instead we're told Russia “invaded” Crimea and is “annexing” it. Yet the contradictions are visible even in the Western media. For example, the New York Times has reported on crowds of thousands of Crimeans- and in other parts of Ukraine- waving Russian flags and chanting “Putin” and Russia.” I don't think Russia imported thousands of Russians from Russia and disguised them as pro-Russian Ukrainians. (But the leaders of the militias are Russian veterans from Russia.) 

By the way, I can recall the U.S. dividing Vietnam in half and setting up a fascist dictatorship in a new “country” it called “South Vietnam.” And invading Grenada to overthrow the government there. And waging a decade-long terror and sabotage campaign against Nicaragua to destabilize the government there. And a three year campaign, including terrorism and the assassination of the Chilean Army chief of staff in 1970, to overthrow that government in 1973. And supporting in practice (and funding to the tune of billions of dollars in free military weaponry a year) Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the best parts of the West Bank. And numerous other examples of, let us say, “interference.” Hell, the U.S. “redrew” its border with Mexico to take a third of Mexico and make it part of the U.S., by force, not by referendum of the inhabitants.

Meanwhile, people in the U.S. who try to comment rationally and objectively on the “crisis” are smeared as parroting “Russian propaganda.” An asshole from the “Peterson Institute for International Economics,” in particular gleefully hurls this insult at people who cite facts he has no refutation for.

And before the referendum was even held, a propagandist on The Daily Beast website inoculated people against thinking the vote could possibly be legitimate by saying anyone voting in favor was either brainwashed by Russian propaganda (the Russians have had like a whole week to “brainwash” people- plenty of time to turn people into zombies, right?) or terrorized by Russian guns. Neither assertion has any relation to reality- as is clear from the Western reporters in the Crimea, who have done their best to skew the picture in the desired anti-Russian and anti-secession direction. But what makes the jobs of propagandists so easy is their total detachment from facts. They can just make stuff up- so much easier than having to study things, think seriously, and make sober judgments! And they get paid!

Which brings me to another- no, not hypocrisy, flat out psychological projection and the most cynical inversion of reality: propagandists from places like the “Peterson Institute for International Economics” (a reactionary factory of propaganda for greed) and the “Atlantic Council” calling serious scholars like Stephen Cohen and others “Russian propagandists” or “a shill for the Russian Government.”

We're also being subjected to official screeches that the Russians have violated the understandings of 1991! Excuse me, the understanding was that the U.S. bloc wouldn't advance right up to Russia's border. And various establishment politicians and polemicists keep accusing Russia of bringing back the Cold War. What is so like the Cold War is NATO pressing right up to Russia's borders, like Reagan did when the U.S. threatened the Soviet Union with a first strike nuclear attack. Given the history of European invasions of Russia (Napoleon, the Kaiser, 22 Western powers that invaded on the side of the White Russians against the Bolsheviks, Poland at various times, and Hitler), why wouldn't Russia (or any nation) want a buffer zone around itself? (We only ever hear about Soviet conquests, which are part of history of course. But deliberately excising half of history is the mark of propaganda.)

I think there's no question about two things: 1) the U.S. created the situation that led to secession by overthrowing the Ukrainian government and installing a puppet regime, and 2) the people in Crimea (and perhaps most of eastern Ukraine) want to join Russia, as they were deeply shaken by events in Kiev, including a new law delegitimizing the Russian language, which is the native tongue of many eastern Ukrainians. Indeed, most of the Crimeans are of Russian extraction. (The new boss in Kiev scotched the anti-Russian law after the new, reactionary-dominated legislature passed it, probably on U.S. instructions.) The U.S. wants the pro-Russian Ukrainians to live under repressive rule of its puppet government in Kiev, backed up by violent fascists who are now inside the government with their hands on key levers of power- police and prosecutor's office, for example.

As U.S. politicians run around denouncing Russian “aggression” and Putin as the second coming of Hitler (Hillary Clinton did as much, invoking the Nazi takeover of Czechoslovakia- if I remember, the Nazis didn't ask the Czechs if they wanted to be invaded, and didn't hold a referendum on that), the U.S. still expects Russia to be a “good partner” in bludgeoning Iran into surrendering its right to enrich uranium (which the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran signed says they have a right to do) and in other ways to be the U.S.' helpmate. This is the definition of being “a responsible member of the international community,” doing the U.S.' bidding.

So the U.S. thought Russia would just roll over and play dead as the U.S. moved to shove them out of their strategic Black Sea naval base. And it expects Russia to keep serving U.S. interests, such as in demanding that Iran wipe out its own nuclear research and uranium enrichment program. (By the way, the U.S. needs Russian cooperation as it evacuates its expeditionary force from Afghanistan. But don't expect gratitude, Russia. The U.S. takes it for granted that all other nations should serve U.S. interests. That's just the natural order of things. Refusing or failing to do so is a violation of the natural order.) This kind of extreme arrogance that blinds one to the obvious and predictable reactions of others to one's own aggressiveness and trampling on their vital interests, is a lot more reminiscent of the Nazis than anything Russia is currently is doing.

1] Regions seceding from larger political entities is a fairly common occurrence historically. Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan, West Virginia broke away from Virginia, when Virginia and the other southern states seceded from the U.S. to form the Confederate States of America. The U.S. and EU didn't object to Yugoslavia breaking up into several states, nor to Czechoslovakia dividing into two separate nations- both in the last couple of decades. And the U.S. pushed for the secession of South Sudan from Sudan and midwifed that breakup process.

Why it's considered absolutely essential that "Ukraine" continue to maintain it's current borders, and absolutely no changes must be allowed, nor formal political divisions created that reflect the real political divisions of the people there, is a mystery. Oh wait, not it isn't. The U.S. wants to swallow the whole
thing, THAT's the reason.

2] The EU is punishing 21 people, both Russians and Ukrainians, for supporting the holding of the referendum, with asset freezes and visa denials. And Obama has slapped sanctions on the overthrow, elected Ukrainian president for good measure.

3] The Tatars boycotted the referendum. Knowing they were going to lose, they can now denounce it as “phony” and “fixed.” (These words were being slung around even before the vote.) I wonder how much of this is on the advice of U.S. operatives.

As for their joining the Nazi invaders, at least initially, no doubt they were motivated by the delusion that the racist self-styled “supermen” would liberate them from Stalin's awful tyranny. The truth is they were caught between a rock and a hard place, or they jumped out of the frying pan into the fire, if you prefer. So I would not be too quick to morally judge their choice- nor the decision to deport their brethren. Reality can impose hard choices on people.

No comments: