U.S.
AND NATO ENCIRCLEMENT OF RUSSIA
[Here only
extracts]
The Big Picture: The U.S. and NATO Have Been Trying to Encircle
Russia Militarily Since 1991
INTRODUCTION
by Hugo Adan, Marzo 4, 2014
The history of ilegal U.S. intervention on Russian’s domestic affairs goes further back. David Foglesong in “America's Secret War Against Bolshevism: U.S. Intervention in the
Russian Civil War, 1917-1920” said that “American intervention in Russia
had both anti-German and anti-Bolshevik objectives, though the latter became
predominant (p. 104)” During Woodrow
Wilson administration the U.S. set “clandestine military and economic
operations against the Soviet government”. But Wilson felt the need to disguise
this anti-red hostility because it "would disillusion left-leaning
Americans and Europeans." Hide our
hand- house advised Wilson, "to
limit the possibility for damage to America's idealistic image" (pp. 65, 94). “The American government
undertook a series of covert actions against Soviet Russia, secretly giving
money to its enemies. These were the "patriotic," democratic
Russians, the "better elements," the "intelligent and
property-owning classes" of Russian society, which the American government
could help to "restore order". http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=489
Gibson Bell Smith autjor of “The U.S. Army in Russia, 1918 – 1920” said that Wilson approved the
dispatch of eight thousand men to Siberia to support the Cossacks, anti-Bolshevik
guerrilla forces, and even Japanese army troops looking to bring Siberia into
Japan's sphere of influence. “It would be the first, and only, time American
troops were on Russian soil”. These troops never returned, they were defeated
by Trotsky army. Reason for this
intervention: “the promotion of democracy
and self-determination. But first and foremost, Wilson wanted to protect the billion-dollar
investment of American guns and equipment along the Trans-Siberian Railway.
Vast quantities of supplies had been sent when America believed that Russia was
capable of fighting and winning against the Central Powers in the spring of
1917” http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/winter/us-army-in-russia-1.html
Since then the story tales of “restore order”, “democracy” and “self-determination” were used for the purpose of “regime change”.
Preserve such idealistic image, suggested Wilson. We don’t do it anymore. We practice naked aggression and genocide, we destroy, invade and plunder foreign countries with
impunity. We are above the law. There will
never be a Nuremberg Tribunals against us.
We are an exception to the rule. We made the rules, the UN belongs to us, the
ICC decides that we decide. How long this will last? Nothing is eternal, empire die and ours
is collapsing.
It is true that we don’t need to preserve
the idealistic
image recommended by President
Wilson. The communication revolution will make it impossible. Everybody can see in Libya and Syria the order we promote. The whole world can see in Iraq and Afganistan the peaceful democracy we aimed.
Regarding self determination,
why not in Ukraine? We don’t need to destroy
a whole country, as we did it in Yugoslavia. We don’t need to bomb Crimea as we
did with the Serbian to impose our sense of autonomy
in Kosovo. If we decide war? how sure are we that Russia, China and
other countries will not bomb America too?. If we don’t plan to bomb but sending troops, Are we sure that our troops will return? Are
McCain and Ms Nuland ready to send their sons, daughters or grand-children to
the war against self-determination? .
This is a matter of principles, not a matter of looking for angels. We need to
preserve principles more than ever. Not as an idealist image. We need real and
new democracy. We need order and peace.
And we need to support their right to self-determination, if people in one
region decided in Referendum so. We need to stand for what is right, it does not matter
if we are alone at the beginning. Soon we will be the majority. We will win!!
=========
BACK TO
By WashingtonsBlog March
3, 2014
The fact that the U.S. has allegedly paid billions of dollars to anti-Russian forces in Ukraine – and even purportedly picked the Ukrainian president – has to be seen in context.
Veteran New York Times reporter Steven Kinzer notes at the Boston Globe:
From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991,
the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling
Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and
Iran. [Background here, here and here.] It has brought 12 countries in
central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO
alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,”
warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began
expanding eastward. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely,
and it will affect their policies.”
Stephen Cohen – professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University who has long focused on Russia – explained this weekend on CNN:
We are witnessing as we talk the making possibly of
the worst history of our lifetime. We are watching the descending of a new cold
war divide between west and east, only this time, it is not in far away Berlin,
it’s right on Russia’s borders through the historical civilization in Ukraine.
It’s a crisis of historic magnitude. If you ask how we got in it, how we got
into the crisis, and how therefore do we get out, it is time to stop
asking why Putin – why Putin is doing this or that, but ask about the American
policy, and the European Union policy that led to this moment.
***
I don’t know if you your listeners or views
remember George Kennan. He was considered [a] great strategic thinker about
Russia among American diplomats but he warned when we expanded NATO [under Bill
Clinton], that this was the most fateful mistake of American foreign policy and
that it would lead to a new Cold War. George lived to his hundreds, died a few
years ago, but his truth goes marching on. The decision to move NATO beginning
in the 90′s continuing under Bush and continuing under Obama, is right now on
Russia’s borders.
And if you want to know for sure, and I have spent
a lot of time in Moscow, if you want to know what the Russian power
elite thinks Ukraine is about, it is about bringing it into NATO. One
last point, that so-called economic partnership that Yanukovych, the
elected president of Ukraine did not sign, and that set off the streets – the
protests in the streets in November, which led to this violence in and
confrontation today, that so-called economic agreement included military
clauses which said that Ukraine by signing this so called civilization
agreement had to abide by NATO military policy. This is what this is about from
the Russian point of view, the ongoing western march towards post Soviet Russia.
Jonathan Steele writes at the Guardian
Both John
Kerry’s threats to expel Russia from the G8 and the Ukrainian government’s
plea for Nato aid mark a dangerous escalation of a crisis that can easily be contained
if cool heads prevail. Hysteria seems to be the mood in Washington and Kiev,
with the new Ukrainian prime minister claiming, “We are on the brink of
disaster” as he calls up army reserves in response to Russian military
movements in Crimea.
Were he talking about the country’s economic plight
he would have a point. Instead, along with much of the US and European media,
he was over-dramatising developments in the east, where Russian speakers are
understandably alarmed after the new Kiev authorities scrapped a law allowing
Russian as an official language in their areas. They see it as proof that the
anti-Russian ultra-nationalists from western Ukraine who were the dominant
force in last month’s insurrection still control it. Eastern Ukrainians fear
similar tactics of storming public buildings could be used against their
elected officials.
Kerry’s rush to punish Russia and Nato’s decision
to respond to Kiev’s call by holding a meeting of member states’ ambassadors in
Brussels today were mistakes. Ukraine is not part of the alliance, so none of
the obligations of common defence come into play. Nato should refrain from
interfering in Ukraine by word or deed. The fact that it insists on getting
engaged reveals the elephant in the room: underlying the crisis in Crimea and
Russia’s fierce resistance to potential changes is Nato’s undisguised ambition
to continue two decades of expansion into what used to be called “post-Soviet
space”, led by Bill Clinton and taken up by successive administrations in
Washington. At the back of Pentagon minds, no doubt, is the dream that a US
navy will one day replace the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Crimean ports of
Sevastopol and Balaclava.
***
Vladimir Putin’s troop movements in Crimea, which
are supported by most Russians, are of questionable legality under the terms of
the peace and friendship treaty that Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997. But their
illegality is considerably less clear-cut than that of the US-led invasion of
Iraq, or of Afghanistan, where the UN security council only authorised
the intervention several weeks after it had happened. [Indeed, top American
leaders admit that the Iraq war was for reasons different than publicly
stated. And the U.S. military sticks its nose in other countries' business all over the world. And see this.] And Russia’s troop movements can be reversed if
the crisis abates. That would require the restoration of the language law in
eastern Ukraine and firm action to prevent armed groups of anti-Russian
nationalists threatening public buildings there.
Again, we don’t believe that there are angels on any side. But we do believe that everyone has to take a step back, look at the bigger picture, calm down and reach a negotiated diplomatic resolution.
And see this, this, this and this (interview with a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
==========
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario