IS RUSSIA THE REAL PROBLEM IN
UKRAINE?. OF COURSE NOT, SAID PAT
BUCHANAN
Introducción
por Hugo Adan. Julio 27, 2014
Si Buchanan
representa una de las viejas sectas conservadoras dentro del Partido
republicano, el viejo conservadurismo religioso que niega derechos a la mujer,
detesta el bilingujismo y esta contra los
nuevos emigrantes latinos, así y todo, esta secta es más progresista y menos
peligrosa que los Neo-cons que han hecho del neoliberalismo un dogma
fundamentalista que aunque ya obsoleto, quieren defenderlo con la guerra y ahora. A la secta neo-cons
pertenece también el ex –demócrata Obama,
aunque no quieran aceptarlo como tal los neo-cons. Obama es un hijo
paria dentro de ese Partido y no es por sus palabras que pertenece a ellos,
sino por sus hechos. A esta secta de cavernarios guerreristas perteneces también
Mr McCain , Ms Nuland, los Bush, Bolton, y los neo-nazis que asaltaron el poder
el 2,000.
Pat Buchanan,
Ron Paul y otros viejos conservadores
como David Stockman son lo mas lúcido dentro del circo republicano. Pat Buchanan fue el que acuñó la sentencia "Our
democracy is a fraud. It's a consumer fraud." Y fue el quien dijo que
los Neocons “want to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in
America's interest”. Y
es tambien Buchanan y Ron Paul quienes no temen hablar de decadencia imperial. Buchanan incluso llegó a sugerir
que America debe aliarse con Putin. Para el Putin no tiene que ver nada con el imperialismo
stalinista ni la forma como se oprimió a Ukrania y otras ex –soviet republics
en el siglo pasado.
En el
articulo de abajo Buchanan hace una rápida revisión de lo ocurrido entre Rusia
y Ukrania y se hace un pregunta: Who is
the real problem here? Quien es el que ha creado el problema allí? Por supuesto que no es Putin, son los
guerreristas americanos los que están creando el problema con su NATO y una
posible guerra de impredecibles consecuencias.
Leamos a Buchanan en la voz de
David Stockman que bien resume sus textos. Si quieren leer el texto original, abajo
lo cito
========
My Thoughts on Pat Buchanan’s
Brilliant and Incisive Take on Washington’s Ukrainian Fiasco
By David Stockman
Saturday - July 26, 2014
EXTRACTS
“During the entire span from 1933, when FDR recognized the
Soviet Union, until 1991, when it ended, the US never once claimed Ukraine’s
independence was part of its foreign policy agenda or a vital national security
interest. Why in the world, therefore, should we be meddling in the backyard of
a far less threatening Russia today?
More importantly, if Ike could invite Khrushchev to tour
America and pow-wow with him at Camp David after the suppression of the
Hungarian freedom fighters and his bluster over Berlin, what in the world is
Obama doing attempting to demonize Putin and make him an international pariah?
The fact is, Crimea had been part of Russia for 200 years, and the Donbas had
been its Russian-speaking coal, steel and industrial heartland since the time
of Stalin.
Putin’s disagreements with the Ukrainian nationalists who
took over Kiev during the Washington inspired overthrow of its
constitutionally-elected government in February are his legitimate
geo-political business, but have nothing to do with our national security. And
whatever his considerable faults, Putin is no totalitarian menace even remotely
in the same league as his Soviet predecessors. In that regard, Hillary
Clinton’s sophomoric comparison of him to Hitler is downright preposterous.
At the heart of the matter is the War Party’s desire to
punish Putin for pushing back against American interventionism in Syria, Iran,
Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. For that Washington has now ensnared
itself in an ancient ethnic struggle that has roiled Russia’s borders for
centuries; and has landed smack in the middle of an attempt by Kiev’s
nationalists to violently maintain the “territorial integrity” of a nation
who’s boundaries have been meandering all over the map since the middle ages.
In that context, Senator John McCain’s call to arm the
ruffians, opportunists, oligarchs and neo-fascists who took power in a street
level coup in Kiev is downright lunatic. It causes Buchanan to ask, “Who is the
real problem here?”
The answer is that it’s not Putin, and that conclusion comes
from a brilliant partisan scholar of 20th century foreign policy who is no
left-wing pacifist.
-------------
El artículo original de Buchanan: es
una respuesta a los demócratas de CNN que ven a Putin peor que Stalin, después de
acusarlo -sin base alguna- de haber derribado el avión de Malasia. Los de CNN
se retractaron luego, pero continúan aun su xenofobia war-mongerista contra Russia.
---------
IS PUTIN WORSE THAN STALIN?
By Pat Buchanan, Friday - July 25, 2014
EXTRACT
On August 1, 1991, just four months before Ukraine declared its independence of Russia, George H. W. Bush warned Kiev’s legislature:
“Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”
In short, Ukraine’s independence was never part of America’s agenda. From 1933 to 1991, it was never a U.S. vital interest. Bush I was against it.
When then did this issue of whose flag flies over Donetsk or Crimea become so crucial that we would arm Ukrainians to fight Russian-backed rebels and consider giving a NATO war guarantee to Kiev, potentially bringing us to war with a nuclear-armed Russia?
From FDR on, U.S. presidents have felt that America could not remain isolated from the rulers of the world’s largest nation.
Ike invited Khrushchev to tour the USA after he had drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. After Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba, JFK was soon calling for a new detente at American University.
Within weeks of Warsaw Pact armies crushing the Prague Spring in August 1968, LBJ was seeking a summit with Premier Alexei Kosygin.
After excoriating Moscow for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983, that old Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was fishing for a summit meeting.
The point: Every president from FDR through George H. W. Bush, even after collisions with Moscow far more serious than this clash over Ukraine, sought to re-engage the men in the Kremlin.
Whatever we thought of the Soviet dictators who blockaded Berlin, enslaved Eastern Europe, put rockets in Cuba and armed Arabs to attack Israel, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 all sought to engage Russia’s rulers.
Avoidance of a catastrophic war demanded engagement.
How then can we explain the clamor of today’s U.S. foreign policy elite to confront, isolate, and cripple Russia, and make of Putin a moral and political leper with whom honorable statesmen can never deal?
What has Putin done to rival the forced famine in Ukraine that starved to death millions, the slaughter of the Hungarian rebels or the Warsaw Pact’s crushing of Czechoslovakia?
In Ukraine, Putin responded to a U.S.-backed coup, which ousted a democratically elected political ally of Russia, with a bloodless seizure of the pro-Russian Crimea where Moscow has berthed its Black Sea fleet since the 18th century. This is routine Big Power geopolitics.
And though Putin put an army on Ukraine’s border, he did not order it to invade or occupy Luhansk or Donetsk. Does this really look like a drive to reassemble either the Russian Empire of the Romanovs or the Soviet Empire of Stalin that reached to the Elbe?
As for the downing of the Malaysian airliner, Putin did not order that. Sen. John Cornyn says U.S. intelligence has not yet provided any “smoking gun” that ties the missile-firing to Russia.
Intel intercepts seem to indicate that Ukrainian rebels thought they had hit an Antonov military transport plane.
Yet, today, the leading foreign policy voice of the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, calls Obama’s White House “cowardly” for not arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russian-backed separatists.
But suppose Putin responded to the arrival of U.S. weapons in Kiev by occupying Eastern Ukraine. What would we do then?
John Bolton has the answer: Bring Ukraine into NATO.
Translation: The U.S. and NATO should go to war with Russia, if necessary, over Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, though no U.S. president has ever thought Ukraine itself was worth a war with Russia.
What motivates Putin seems simple and understandable. He wants the respect due a world power. He sees himself as protector of the Russians left behind in his “near abroad.” He relishes playing Big Power politics. History is full of such men.
He allows U.S. over flights to Afghanistan, cooperates in the P5+1 on Iran, helped us rid Syria of chemical weapons, launches our astronauts into orbit, collaborates in the war on terror and disagrees on Crimea and Syria.
But what motivates those on our side who seek every opportunity to restart the Cold War?
Is it not a desperate desire to appear once again Churchillian, once again heroic, once again relevant, as they saw themselves in the Cold War that ended so long ago?
Who is the real problem here?
---------
Of course Putin is not, sugiere Pat Buchanan en el articulo de arriba. Nosotros los Americanos somos los responsables por los problemas que sufrem los pueblos del sur de Ucrania.
=========
Related article:
David Stockman
author of the New York Times best-seller, The
Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America (2013),
Stockman lays out how the U.S. has devolved from a free market economy into one
fatally deformed by Washington’s endless fiscal largesse, K-street lobbies and
Fed sponsored bailouts and printing press money.
----------
See also: Political Positions
of Pat Buchanan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Pat_Buchanan#Russia
===========
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario