| Главная » Файлы » The Ukrainian Tragedy » The Phoney war |
| 27.09.2024, 23:08 | |
Western allies of Ukraine The USA managed to organize the most powerful coalition in the history of wars against Russia. This coalition, dominated by “the familiar dichotomy of the good (the Western world) against the evil (Russia)”, in its messianic and idealistic reach - is a modern variety of a Crusade: “50 Western nations including 28 countries of NATO condemned the invasion. NATO includes 30 countries, but two of them - Turkey and Hungary - maintain a conspicuously different stance on relations with Russia and the Ukrainian conflict. However, most Western countries regard the event in terms of the familiar dichotomy of the good (the Western world) against the evil (Russia). This cognitive scenario emerged in Joe Biden’s March speech in Warsaw: it articulated the war as the eternal struggle between “democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression; between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.” [Harding, 2022: 151] This cognitive scenario was successfully imposed upon fifty nations, including the G -7, responsible for more than half the world’s gross domestic product. Thus, the pro-Ukraine bloc forged by the USA includes such European heavy-weights as Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Spain, Portugal, plus Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. The consensus of the allies seems astounding. As Luke Harding put it: “Western nations agreed on the nature of the invasion. There was no dispute about what happened in spring 2022 and what it fundamentally meant. As Zelensky said, this was not a war waged by Russia against only Ukraine. It was ultimately a war for the future of the world order and for the right to dictate conditions in Europe. A war, then, of ideas.” [Harding, 2022: 151] The Freudian slip of the tongue – “a war for the future of the world order and for the right to dictate conditions in Europe” – gives another perspective to the tragedy: what if Russia rejects “the right to dictate conditions in Europe?” The slip of the tongue verbalizes real intentions. The assumed, theatrical and hyped-up “consensus” in the Western approach does not make it true. On the contrary, it abounds in tendentious nonsense. Just listen to the horrible stories about the Russian atrocities. One of these says that the Russians are deliberately targeting civilians. The reality in the words of a renowned American diplomat is different: “Tendentious nonsense. In most wars the ratio of military-to-civilian deaths is roughly one-to-one, and in this case the recorded civilian deaths are about one-tenth of that, which strongly suggests that the Russians have been holding back.” Chas Freeman in an interview: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/24/US-FIGHTING-RUSSIA-TO-THE-LAST-UKRAINIAN-VETERAN-US-DIPLOMAT/ False allegations The description of the ongoing conflict abounds in false allegations. 1) The most absurd piece of news spread by the President of Ukraine alleges that the Russians are planting mines to blow up the nuclear power station in Energodar. How can Russia blow up the power plant which is under its control and protection? That surely is a rhetorical question. Rafael Grossi: ‘It is not a Russian military objective to attack nuclear plants’ The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency is mediating for Russia and Ukraine to protect the largest nuclear power station in Europe, which has become a spoil of war. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog – said in an update Wednesday that there were no visible indications of mines or explosives at the ZNPP, but requested additional access to the site for confirmation. Ukrainians are angry with Rafael Grossi who says that there were no visible indications of mines or explosives at the ZNPP. “Access to the rooftops of reactor units 3 and 4 is essential, as well as access to the turbine halls and some parts of the cooling system of the plant,” IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said in a statement. 2) Ukraine is a vibrant young democracy. Certainly, until 2014 there were some promising signs of democracy: free elections, robust opposition in Parliament, freedom of speech with competing newspapers and TV channels. But even at the beginning Kiev frowned at real democracy. Suffice it to mention the scrapping of the Crimean Constitution in 1995 and the abolition of the post of the Crimean president on March 17. The “democratic” Kuchma (President of Ukraine) deposed President of the Crimea Meshkov and sent him into exile. The short-lived Crimean democracy breathed its last without a word of protest from the West (and, surprisingly, from Russia too). In February 2014 the leaders of the unconstitutional coup in Kiev unleashed an unprecedented campaign of street violence by armed mobsters against opposition parties, independent journalists and opposition mass media. The Maidan coup that toppled a democratically elected government, launched genocide against the Russian language and Russians and sent troops to Donbas to put down the unarmed protests against the rise of Nazism in Ukraine – can hardly be called “a vibrant young democracy”. 3) The Russians are stealing Ukrainian children. Western spin doctors like to talk big about the Russians “stealing Ukrainian children”. For a citizen of Zaporozhye, like me, such a story carries a stench of propaganda and sensation. The reality within the context of 5 million of Ukrainians moving to Russia from Ukraine after the coup of 2014 and after February 2022 is different: the humanitarian mission of saving children from the horrors of war cannot be described as “stealing”. For some reason Western benefactors never spoke about the Ukrainian army shelling the rebellious Donbass and killing thousands of civilians in the process from 2014 till 2022. Why not mention the Alley of Angels (a memorial to children) in Donetsk killed by the Ukrainian army in cold blood? At the entrance there is an arch made of forged roses interwoven with machine gun ammunition casings, a symbol of war, and doves, a symbol of peace. Under the arch there is a granite slab with the names and ages of the killed children. Russia provided refuge to those who were running away from the Ukrainian punitive troops. All malicious talk about “stealing children” is just spreading lies and contributing to the misinformation campaign against Russia. 4) The Russian army commits war crimes and Putin is a criminal. The reality is different. Every war entails the loss of civilian life. However, as Chass Freeman points out, the average loss of military and civilian life during hostilities is one to one, unlike it is the case in this conflict where the loss of the military is ten to one. It means that Russia shows caution in the choice of targets so that Ukrainian civilians should not be hit. “Brutal targeting of civilians” is an outrageous lie. Demonizing Putin and whitewashing NATO Behind the campaign of demonizing Putin there is an intention to distract the attention of the world from NATO’s expansion that carries an existential threat to Russia Putin so clearly had been speaking about. The West seems to be unfair to Putin, but the West (Brutus) is honourable and can’t be lying. As Shakespeare has it: “But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man.” The most important precondition for the Western discourse to triumph requires whitewashing of NATO whose very existence after the suicidal (for the Soviets) demolition of the Soviet-led Warsaw pact seemed illogical and unaccountable. After all, what viable justification for investing money into NATO could be found if NATO’s enemy surrendered and evaporated? However, even in the West there are heavyweights who are critical of this approach. Pope Francis in an interview to Corriere Della Sera famously said that the real “scandal” of Putin’s war is “NATO barking at Russia’s door,” which he said caused the Kremlin to “react badly and unleash the conflict.” The Russian approach, predictably, stands in direct opposition to Biden’s idea of sovereignty.” The Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu put it like this: “Sovereignty can simply be forgotten about after any American intervention.” [Hahn, 2021: 354] The Russian approach is in conformity with the tradition of realpolitik that can’t exist without “spheres of influence.” Russia’s partners Despite international condemnation, some countries continue to be on friendly terms with Russia (Afghanistan, China, India, Brazil, Iran, Turkey, South Africa, Arab nations and the other countries of the so called Global South) with some of them even backing Moscow over its decision to invade Ukraine: Belarus, Cuba, Eritrea, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Venezuela. https://www.ibtimes.com/these-countries-are-loudly-supporting-russias-ukraine-invasion-3418085 Russia’s friends Belarus Belarus, led by Europe's self-proclaimed "last dictator", Alexander Lukashenko, has supported Putin's regime since the Ukraine invasion commenced in February. The country has acted primarily as a "springboard" for Russian troops, but opposition media has claimed some Belarusian troops have also entered the fray. Cuba Days before the Russian invasion, Cuba released a statement where it accused the U.S. of threatening Moscow and manipulating the dangers and threat of an “imminent” invasion of Ukraine. Eritrea Eritrea won independence from Ethiopia, a much more powerful country to its south, in 1993—just a couple of years after Ukraine broke away from Russia. As in Ukraine, nationhood in Eritrea is seen as something fragile which cannot be taken for granted. That’s why Eritrea’s solidarity with an imperialist and revanchist Russia seems paradoxical and surprising. As a young country long threatened by a bigger neighbour, it appears more like Ukraine. North Korea North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has demanded that the U.S. cease its “hostile policy for isolating and weakening” Russia. Pakistan Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan met with Putin amid the Russian invasion. Khan said he regretted the situation and said he hoped diplomacy could have prevented the military conflict. Khan is the only world leader to have physically met with Putin since the beginning of the attack. Syria Syria was one of the first to recognize the two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine after the Russian president acknowledged them as independent states. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad also had a phone call with Putin on Feb. 25 where he expressed strong support for the invasion, which he called a “correction of history and restoration of balance.” Venezuela Venezuela, a known ally of Russia, slammed the U.S. and NATO for allegedly heightening the tensions and violating the Minsk accords. The country did not lay blame on Russia for the invasion. Some countries go so far as to sell weapons to Russia. Iran Iran's decision to aid Russia in the war on Ukraine reflects the expanding strategic alliance with Moscow. From August 2022 till May 2023, Iran provided Russia with hundreds of drones, including the Shahed-136 suicide drone and the Mohajer-6 reconnaissance and strike drone. China China denies taking part in the process, but Ukrainian forces are finding a growing number of components from China in Russian weapons used in Ukraine, a senior adviser in President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's office told Reuters. South Africa On May 11, 2023 the Guardian published an article under the headline “US accuses South Africa of providing arms to Russia.” The US ambassador to South Africa accused the country of covertly providing arms to Russia in a most expressive way (the US believed weapons and ammunition had been loaded on to a Russian freighter that docked at a Cape Town naval base in December): “We are confident that weapons were loaded on to that vessel and I would bet my life on the accuracy of that assertion. The arming of Russia by South Africa is fundamentally unacceptable.” The charge drew an angry rebuke from Pretoria. However, there are some countries that openly support Moscow. A statement, released by Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Rodriguez backs up the right of Russia to “defend itself” in the language and style that could well be perceived as the rallying cry of Latin America: “Llamamos a EEUU y a la OTAN a atender de manera seria y realista los fundados reclamos de garantías de seguridad de Rusia, que tiene derecho a defenderse. Cuba aboga por una solución diplomática a través del diálogo constructivo y respetuoso.” Translation into English: We call on the US and NATO to seriously and realistically address the well-founded demands for security guarantees from Russia, which has the right to defend itself. Cuba advocates a diplomatic solution through constructive and respectful dialogue. Luke Harding’s book “Invasion” A significant contribution to the understanding of the nature of tragic events in Ukraine may be found in Luke Harding’s book “Invasion”: Indeed, the conflict began much earlier, and it was masterminded not by Russia. The Americans carried out a meticulous operation of pushing Russia into the invasion, that set-up a situation of Zugzwang between Russia and Ukraine with neither of them having a chance to retreat or achieve a trade-off. Thus, “Invasion” is a good piece of camuflanguage that manipulates the reader into thinking in terms of an innocent victim (Ukraine) and an aggressor (Russia). Ukraine is really a victim of its corrupt, unscrupulous, greedy, lying and ruthless “leaders” who agreed to use its own people as a battering ram in the proxy war of the American-led West against Russia. The West showers Ukraine with war loans, trains its army in accordance with NATO standards, shares with it vital reconnaissance data, and is arming Ukraine with sophisticated weapons, as well as supplying it with military advisers, “volunteers” and mercenaries. Besides, the West provides it with diplomatic assistance, mass media positive coverage, and international settings for russophobic propaganda. President of Ukraine Zelensky is nothing more than a cowardly lickspittle American puppet who sold his own country to the Americans and is ready to fight the “eternal foe” – Russia - until the last Ukrainian. As a take-away of everything written about the invasion, I would say that all people are unhappy about it for different reasons. The narrative that reflects the point of view of the Russian people is a long way off the official scenario with “demilitarization and denazification” behind it. The mounting criticism is fed by stories of Vladimir Solovyov, Igor Strelkov (Girkin), Yevgeny Prigozhin, Major General Ivan Popov etc. who speak about a badly planned and poorly executed operation with corruption, inefficiency and sabotage in the top echelons of power in the Kremlin. The “march of justice” exposed plenty of controversy among the movers and shakers that turned out to be badly disunited in the face of the existential threat. What is more important is the repeated mistake of the Kremlin to react to the numerous crossings of the “red lines” by the West with impotent promises of revenge. It is high time for the Kremlin to understand that the SMO can’t make Kiev more reasonable. Ukraine as the “anti-Russia” project is a malignant tumor on the body of the Russian Federation. The sooner it disappears from the map with its artificial independence and fake history, the better.
Conclusions 1. The coerced, reluctant and recalcitrant invasion of Russia into Ukraine is the last resort to prevent Ukraine from being drawn into the American sphere of influence and must be regarded as an escalation of the Maidan coup in Kiev that put the final touches into Ukraine as the “anti-Russia” project masterminded and financed by the Americans. 2. All the 30 years of its “independence” Ukraine was marching towards the project of “Anti-Russia”, because Ukrainian government having no history of independence to speak seriously about knew no other interpretation of independence than “away from Moscow!” 3. Ukraine’s intention to join such anti-Russia projects as the EU and NATO is clearly a betrayal of the solemn pledges of the Ukrainian declaration of independence and its treaty of friendship with Russia: the appearance of a hostile state on the territory of Ukraine is absolutely unacceptable to Russia, and Russia will be forced to deal with the malignant tumor of Ukrainian “independence” sooner or later. 4. The noise, bluster and big talk of the West around the “invasion” aim at deflecting the attention of the world from the bloody Kiev coup arranged by the West in 2014. 5. Biden’s denunciation of “spheres of influence” must be treated as an irresponsible but good-sounding piece of political rhetoric which had nothing to do with American realpolitik as it reveals itself in the Caribbean crisis and in the Wolfowitz Doctrine, among other meaningful acid tests. 6. Criticism of the laid-back, defensive and irresolute tactics of the Russian army in Ukraine comes from people carrying sway and authority in Russia. The public anger over the slow pace of the SMO focused attention on the corruption in the Russian Defense Ministry which was subjected to radical purges. 7. While the split in the world during the cold war was maintained by the face-off between the capitalist and the socialist camp, now the differences in the attitude to the Ukrainian conflict separate the world into the nations backing up Russia and those who unambiguously denounce the Russian “invasion”. 8. With the Russian SMO high on the agenda of Western mass media, the latter scored a victory in the information war with Russia by getting the world public opinion accustomed to the Western interpretation of the SMO as a “brutal invasion”. 9. Chass Freeman points out, the average loss of military and civilian life during hostilities is one to one, unlike it is the case in this conflict where the loss of the military is ten to one which testifies to the Russian intention to avoid hitting Ukrainian civilians.
| |
| Просмотров: 14 | Загрузок: 0 | | |
| Всего комментариев: 0 | |
