A brief history of Russia & the West

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Richard Moore

Aug 13, 2008, 1:11:32 PM8/13/08
to cyberj...@yahoogroups.com, cyberj...@lists.riseup.net, cyberj...@googlegroups.com, Globalresearch.ca

Everyone, since geopolitics was invented, has always known that Eurasia is the key to global supremacy. For that reason, Russia has been under attack by the West every time the West could get it together to launch an attack. Napolean had his try, and the Germans had a go in World War I, having been manipulated in the context of Britain's balance of powers strategy. Then in World War II the Germans attacked again, having been re-armed by Western financiers. A strong, healthy Russia, even if geopolitically benign, is an obstacle to any power who seeks hegemony in global affairs.

The Cold War, an invention of the West, embodied two primary objectives. First and foremost, it provided an excuse for interventions all over the globe on the part of the US – ostensibly 'protecting the free world from Communism' – while in fact exploiting the hell out of what were deemed to be 'underdeveloped' nations. Secondarily, the Cold War amounted to a long-term attempt to destabilize the Soviet Union, which finally succeeded in 1990. The Cold War was perhaps the most successful of the historical series of attacks on Russia.

Once the Soviet Union had been destabilized, Yeltsin, a tool of the West, continued the attack on the Russian Republic itself, selling off its assets to cronies, while leaving Russia's infrastructures to rot. But lo, there arose in the East a great leader, along with surging oil prices, and Putin managed to turn Russia back into a contending super power. The tide had turned. The Bear had awoken and found its courage. The old Grand Chess Game was again afoot.

The next Western attack, following that of Yeltsin, came in the form of CIA-managed 'colored revolutions', in the Ukraine, Georgia, et al. Russia has itself to blame for the ill will toward Russia that lingered in these places, but in reality that old history was not relevant in these political events. The ill will was exploited successfully, but in fact these nations would fare much better in close cooperation with Russia than as client states of the West. 

I don't want to romanticize Russia, not at all. But one must recognize certain things about Russian imperialism as contrasted to Western imperialism. Western imperialism – driven by banking elites – has economic exploitation as its primary objective. Russian imperialism – driven by national interests – has national security as its primary objective. While Western colonies, aka client states, are always poorer than the West, the Eastern European satellite nations typically had a higher standard of living than Russia itself during the Soviet era. Russia was more concerned with having a stable buffer against the West, than it was with robbing the satellites of their assets. 

This is why I say that the nations surrounding Russia, now that they have gained their independence from Russian bureaucratic methods, would be better off economically by integrating themselves as peers into the Russian sphere of influence. Unfortunately, Russia is pathetic with propaganda, and with population management, as compared to the West, so they resorted to dictatorial methods in the Soviet era – and hence all the residual ill will that currently beclouds sound economic thinking. Any client state of the West is destined for economic exploitation, typically by means of enriching a local elite and keeping it in power as long as it plays ball with the international bankers – and suppresses its own people.

The current situation
Russia has turned the tide re/colored-revolutions, and is enticing back to the fold many of its neighbors by offering them favorable and profitable economic deals – not by installing suppressive client regimes. Russia has also out-foxed the US-UK oil cartel in the Caspian region and elsewhere. Russia, in concert with China, is beginning to eclipse the US-EU Axis in many areas, including manufacturing, control over energy supplies, productive economic activity, and monetary reserves. Only in military capability does the US continue to hold a #1 rating, and the actual military advantage slips day by day away from the Pentagon, as Russia and China develop their 'asymmetric' counter-measures.

This is the context in which US-NATO trained, armed, and encouraged Georgia to launch its brutal and illegal attack on South Ossetia, intentionally killing Russian citizens and peace-keepers, and intentionally targeting civilians generally. Nearly all of the casualties in the overall conflict were inflicted by Georgian forces at the outset of hostilities. The US and UK media refer to the total number of casualties, and imply that Russia is to blame for them. Such is the nature of our so-called 'free press'.

Clearly the US & NATO had no intention of backing up the Georgian forces, although Saakashvili was most likely led to believe otherwise. It's always dangerous to  go with a 'green light to attack' from America. Saddam fell into that trap and got the Gulf War for his reward. And way back in the 1956 Hungarian uprising, the Voice of America had promised the rebels that America would come to their aid, and then they were left out to dry, cannon fodder for Cold-War propaganda. The Kurds have been similarly betrayed on several occasions. The Native American's had a phrase about the yankees, "White man speak with forked tongue". 

Russia could not possibly have responded other than she did, on humanitarian grounds alone, along with national pride, and backed up by current international law & practice. And given the current geopolitical situation, Russia was probably looking for an opportunity to demonstrate her new-found assertiveness on the world stage. So the whole scenario was totally predictable by Washington, and the outcomes are exactly what the US wanted. Hence the one-sided spin in the media. The whole point of the operation was to demonize Russia and to reinstate the Cold War regime, an objective the US has been building up to for some time.

What's to come
This leads us to considering two possible future scenarios: armageddon, or regionalism. In the armageddon scenario – the stuff of Cheney's dreams – we finally have World War III, a nuclear exchange, and the winner takes all, if a winner remains standing. In the context of that scenario, the Georgian exercise would be meant to harden the lines, and to prepare populations to understand the 'why' of conflicts to come.

In the regionalism scenario, which I explored in The Post-Bush Regime, a Prognosis, the motivation for the Georgian exercise would be more along the lines of 1984 – the creation of an enemy persona, an essential character in propaganda drama... "The Wicked Witch of the East unleashes her winged monkeys on the 'innocent' Georgians" – that sort of thing.

In support of the armageddon scenario we have reports of a US-NATO naval armada converging on Iran, with the intention of a full blockade. Russian military ships would challenge such a blockade, and off we go into armageddon land. 

In support of the regionalism scenario we have reports of a collapsing dollar, and of the Amero coming to the rescue, along with the North American Union. A circling of the wagons into regional self-sufficiency, and most likely a post-capitalist, neo-feudal, world system. 

Which will it be?

Your guess is as good as mine. 

On the other hand, by means of grass-roots intervention, a whole new scenario could be introduced. Only time will tell.


Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages