Color me a Revolution
The disturbing crises in Ukraine edges the world closer to a war of epic proportions, the United States announced that the International Community will not recognize the results of Crimean referendum. In lieu of that statement, let us for a moment just consider who this International Community that our policy makers are so fond of, really is. In any lawful context the only legitimate International Community is the United Nations.
However, in reality, according to many scholars and diplomats, the arbitrary terms such as the International Community keep being usedin an exclusive rather than inclusive manner, referring to the United States, its Western Allies (NATO), and whichever other governments it rallies to its cause de jour. In other words, it is a euphemism for Washington and its satellites. In that context the “International Community” maintains thebranding and marketing of its deadliest export around the world, “democracy”.
In particular, the nations in which democracy has been wreaking havoc as of late, echo the announcement by the US Secretary of State John Kerry: ”You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext”. Many have immediately pointed out to the hypocrisy of that statement, remembering the disasters of Yugoslavia/Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and now Ukraine.
In order to understand the origins of the Ukrainian crises even further, it is important to consult the long time strategist, mastermind and architect of the US foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski. In his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, he maintains that America stands supreme and dominant world power, adding that Russia without Ukraine is only a regional power, but with Ukraine, its resources and the 52 million people, it regains its throne as an Eurasian empire.“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia.
”Coincidentally, also in 1997 another relevant book was published, that of Alexander Dugin, respected professor, philosopher and advisor to President Vladimir Putin. Widely used as an educational and military textbook in Russia, The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia, serves as an ideological foundation of Russia’s new reentrance into history as a world super power, based on the rejection of Atlanticism. It also paints the outmost strategic importance of Ukraine stating: “Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics“. Clearly, these two diametrically opposing ideologies are at the very core of the struggle for the domination on the global stage, and the evermore important notion of the Balance of Power.
As the Ukrainian crises keeps unfolding Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State who elevated foreign policy and diplomacy to an art form, also stressed the importance of Ukraine to Russia, understanding that the historical context of the region plays a pivotal role in the crises, as Ukraine has been a part of Russia for centuries. “The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus.” On the other hand, while recognizing relevant history, Russian security intersts, and the fact that Ukraine should not join NATO, but rather be a bridge between East and West despite the great internal divide, Kissinger stressed that it is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be up to Crimea to decide and self-determine, hence referendum commences, and Russia may rightfully reclaim a piece of own territory without a shot fired.
It is a certain height of irony that the existing US world order only calls for respect of international law, sovereignty and territorial integrity befitting own interests, while belligerently breaks fundamental rule of international law as well as own law by not upholding the Constitution, waging perpetual, unconstitutional war under the auspices of humanitarian intervention and the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. One such case, which has been brought front and center as the crises in Ukraine imploded, was the Pandora’s Box of a precedent created in the issue of Kosovo. As the US calls for the outmost respect for the Ukrainian sovereignty, it also showed outmost disregard for the territorial integrity and sovereignty first of Yugoslavia, and then of Serbia, whose sovereignty was guaranteed by the UN Resolution 1244.
After 78 day bombing campaign of Serbia in 1999, on behalf of the Albanian separatist in Kosovo, the US not only encouraged but directly sponsored the unilateral declaration of independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo. It is precisely this case that President Vladimir Putin used to paint the double standard of the US policy saying that if Kosovo can do it, so can Crimea. With the Kosovo precedent, the Western allies ushered a destabilizing element onto the global stage, opening the possibility to many disputed regions, including Scotland, Catalonia, and even Venice in Italy, which is to also hold a referendum in order to sever from Rome and create RepublicaVeneta.
As Kosovo created an international precedent, many have voiced their opinion on the matter in comparison to Ukraine. Gerhard Schroeder, former German Chancellor understood the Russian fear of being virtually encircled by NATO, and rightfully acting in the interest of its own national security. He also added that the international law was breached when Serbia was bombed, comparing it to Russian actions in Crimea. Current German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that there is no comparison to Kosovo, not elaborating nor bringing any arguments for her assertions. Interestingly enough President Obama stated that “in 2014we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders”. Well, some of those leaders are turning in their graves at the very sound of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, given American rooted disdain to all things communist, pioneering total disintegration and dismantling of the communist system worldwide, one would think nullifying the communist borders would be the first order of business. Insisting on maintaining communist drawn arbitrary borders in the case of former Yugoslav republics and former Soviet republics is quite contrary to the American anti-communist ideology. In both cases, maintaining the legacy of communist drawn borders, Americans maintain the very system thy despise so much. Strategically, they dilute the perceived threat of the key players in the respective regions, Serbs and Russians, historical and natural allies, depriving them both of the right to self-determine, keeping them bound hostages of their inflicted communist past. Are Americans ready and willing to start WWIII with Russia over Nikita Khrushchev’s gift of Crimea to Ukraine?
As the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Cold War ended, many policy makers could not shake their Cold War mentality, which is very much evident to this day, especially considering the new low of the mainstream media and their coverage of the Sochi Olympics, as well as general political coverage of Russia andPresident Vladimir Putin. Unfortunately, this propaganda type of streaming does a great disservice to the American people, modeling the journalist and politicians into figures of dishonesty, corruption and deliberate treachery.Post-Cold War era also ushered a new dimension of US foreign policy modeled after Gene Sharp, and his colored revolution manifesto, midwifing a foreign sponsored OTPOR/CANVAS organization in Serbia, which after overthrowing Slobodan Milosevic started moving around the globe, destabilizing regimes unfriendly to the United States, as described in an investigative report by Steve Horn and Carl Gibson. These revolutionaries for hire and profit have been involved in every country affected by the Arab Spring, as well as Iran, Ukraine and Venezuela, recognizable by their symbols, strategy and the common blueprint.
What is concerning in case of Ukraine is the alarming infiltration of the pro-Nazi organizations within the allegedly peaceful protestors and the newly self-appointed government. In particular, the Right Sector party and the Svoboda party, ideologically driven by the likes of Stepan Bandera, a well-known Nazi collaborator. Eerie similarity to the case of former Yugoslavia, in particular Croatia and its own Nazi collaborators known as Ustasa, who inflicted the same amount of atrocities towards the Serbs and Jews as the Ukrainian Nazis did towards Russians and Jews during WWII, whose legacy was carried over into the wars of the 1990s. It is very curious also that the US and its allies, would in any case be affiliated and in support of any fascist or Nazi elements. Germany in particular, given its history, should pay great attention to its entanglements, as even by degrees of separation, it could be seen as complicit in revival of Nazism in Croatia, Ukraine, and the Baltic states. The comments made by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton, echoed by warmongering Senator John McCain, come as the height of cynicism, calling Vladimir Putin the new Hitler, knowing that over 20 million Russians died fighting the Nazis, paving the way for the Americans and English to come out victorious in WWII.
As the war drums keep beating in some neocon and liberal circles alike, the only consistently rational, sane and reasonable voices in American politics are those of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Kucinich and Dana Rohrabacher to name a few, who maintain that the US is breaking its own laws by constantly meddling in internal affairs of foreign nations, policing the world, endangering US national security and misrepresenting the will and the interest of the American people. $5 billion dollar investment to support a regime change in Ukraine, coupled with, by now infamous, Victoria Nuland phone gaffe, paints a classic picture of foreign entanglement at its finest. While Russia has no legitimate interest in attacking the US, it seems that the long term US/NATO goal is to completely encircle Russia, in order to eventually get a hold of its natural resources, as Madeline Albright once asserted that it was unfair for Russia to have a monopoly over the resource rich Siberia.
But, US and the Europeans do not have many legitimate options at this point, and the threat of sanctions would inflict much pain on the already wounded EU. As Professor John Mearsheimer explained in his op-ed, Washington played a key role in this dangerous situation, and Russia has legitimate concerns for its national security and strategic interests, as NATO in its expansionist policy was courting both Georgia and Ukraine on Russia’s border, where Mr. Putin drew the line.“The United States, which has been unable to leave the Cold War behind, has treated Russia as a potential threat since the early 1990s and ignored its protests about NATO’s expansion and its objections to America’s plan to build missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.”
Russia on the other hand can inflict great economic harm to the EU as they are dependent on Russian gas, as well as refuse any assistance when it comes to Iran or Syria. Russia can also to dump the dollar, as billions have already been pulled out from the western banks. Some have pointed out that the Russians will raise their deficit if they annex Crimea, but 17 trillion in debt and counting should be something we divert our attention to.
One thing is certain, the Cold War can escalate into a Hot War with apocalyptic consequences, as those who have gotten us into this, don’t know how to get us out.This colored revolution may be blood red.