To the casual consumer of McMedia happy meals, the Ukrainian crisis is a consequence of Russia’s yearning for empire lost, a Nazi-style Anschluss that began with Crimea and will end, judging by the big-font hysteria, somewhere near Alaska.
For the more sober-minded observer, however, whose worldview has
not been vandalized by misguided Russophobic inclinations, the
reality of the situation is a bit more complicated.
In December 2013, then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich made
a decision that seems radical only because we have been trained
to believe that national indebtedness to foreign institutions is
the natural order of things: After telling EU's officials that he
intended to sign the European association agreement, Yanukovich
sent shock waves across the Western world when he suddenly
reversed his decision (Until now, only Iceland has had the
courage to say 'no' to western liberal reformers and their
massive cash injections since the bottom fell out of the global
economy in 2008).
Why the change of heart? Because the now-deposed Ukrainian leader
had no desire to sell his proud nation down the river. Yanukovich
understood that the harsh austerity measures demanded by the
EU-IMF-NATO triumvirate would have served as a final death blow
to the Ukrainian people, already suffering from many years of
high unemployment and a withering economy.
Yanukovich decided instead to accept a no-strings-attached loan
of $15 billion from neighboring Russia - interest-free!
Considering the ongoing meltdown of EU member states, most
notably in Greece, which continues to stagnate despite a massive
$145 billion injection in 2010, Kiev’s volte-face toward Russia
was not without merit.
However, that is not the way the Masters of the Western Universe,
who wish to control the debt of nations, saw the situation.
No sooner had Yanukovich adjusted his reading glasses to read the
fine-print conditions on the EU-IMF agreement, US Senator John
McCain was in central Kiev, agitating the local populace with
boilerplate promises of a debt-free future while shaking hands
and kissing so many babies you’d think he was running for the
Ukrainian presidency.
“Ukraine will make Europe better, and Europe will make
Ukraine better,” McCain told a confused crowd in Kiev.
“We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right
of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently.
And the destiny you seek lies in Europe.”
Later, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was in Kiev,
just as anti-government protests had reached fevered pitch,
handing out pastries to Ukraine’s protesters and riot police.
While there was no word on the expiration date of the bakery
goods, the idea of the American superpower acting self-righteous
and charitable in the middle of a foreign nation’s internal
crisis – triggered in no small part by Washington’s own
manipulations – was unappetizing to say the least.
So how does one explain Washington’s extreme diplomatic overtures
in Kiev? Is it simply a case that the United States, as the
self-designated champion of human rights and cake distribution,
is merely acting as an impartial advocate on behalf of an
internal political struggle (with emphasis on the word
'internal')? History would suggest otherwise.
It is no secret that the United States has been angling for a
strategic advantage in Eastern Europe since the end of World War
II, with special attention focused on strategically important
Ukraine, which could serve as a future bridgehead into Central
Asia and beyond. In an interview with Kiev’s Weekly Digest (May,
2004) Zbigniew Brzezinski, Washington’s premier adviser on
geopolitical strategy, emphasized the importance of Russia's
neighbor.
Ukraine “is certainly not a pawn; it may not be a queen, but
it certainly is an important element on the chessboard – one of
the most important.”
We could probably agree that one does not normally allude to the
ultimate game of strategy when discussing democracy and people
power. Clearly, Brzezinski and his worn-out chess board was
making an unmistakable reference to Ukraine's military importance
to the United States. It was not, of course, a call for
humanitarian action.
So what conclusion should Russian strategists draw from such
analysis, especially as NATO continues its mechanized march
toward Russia’s border, and despite pledges made to Moscow
following the collapse of the Soviet Union that the military bloc
would not “move an inch” beyond Germany?
Reset ‘Nyet’
Washington’s disingenuous approach to the so-called “reset,” an
Obama-conceived initiative used to camouflage America’s
militaristic designs in the region, was finally revealed by
NATO’s blunt refusal to permit Russia's participation in the US
missile defense shield project in Eastern Europe – a stone’s
throw from the Russian border.
Moscow warned if NATO failed to agree on some sort of mutual
agreement with Russia over the ambitious project, which has all
the potential to destroy the fragile strategic balance in the
region, another arms race could occur on the continent. Yet as
incredible as it may seem, NATO seems willing to alienate Russia
over an unproven system allegedly designed to neutralize an
unproven enemy (Iran) while risking an all-out nuclear-tipped
arms race.
Judging by the relative insanity of NATO's decision, which
ignores the necessity of bilateral cooperation in the war on
terror, to which Russia is certainly no stranger, the only thing
the “reset” achieved was to sow dissent and disagreement between
the former Cold War foes. The Ukrainian crisis was merely the
final straw on the back of an overloaded camel.
However, one nation’s crisis is another corporation’s windfall.
Indeed, developments in Ukraine certainly spell big bucks for
America’s bloated defense industry, which has used the Ukraine
crisis in general, and the Crimean “annexation” in particular, to
warn Capitol Hill of Russia’s “return to imperialism.”
Never mind that Russia has not violated the territorial integrity
of a single foreign country - without being attacked first, as
was the case with Georgia - since the collapse of the Soviet
Union.
“Everybody in the Pentagon and in the defense industry is
using the Ukraine crisis as a warning for why the department
needs to spend more on military technology,” Loren Thompson,
chief operating officer for the Lexington Institute, told AP.
Military advantage, however, is not the only reason for
Washington imposing itself on Kiev. To understand the full
picture, it is only necessary to consider the corporate circus
that US Congress has become, in which the “people’s
representatives” now take their marching orders from boardrooms
across corporate America.
Consider, for example, efforts by the American Petroleum
Institute to take advantage of Kiev’s chaos.
“We’ve just had a consistent drumbeat going since the
beginning of last year,” Erik Milito, API’s director of
industry operations, told Bloomberg. “We just kept doing it,
and this became a more heightened debate during the whole Ukraine
situation.”
Milito said the message from API, whose members include the likes
of Chevron and Exxon Mobil, was not lost upon Democrat and
Republican members of Congress.
“It’s a common thing when there’s a crisis for companies to
see opportunity, and they will use advocacy to pursue their
interests,” said James Thurber, director of the Center for
Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in
Washington.
This begs the obvious question: Is the United States purposefully
provoking crises, like the one presently ripping Ukraine apart by
the seams, in order to advance itself not only militarily in the
region (after all, EU membership de facto implies NATO membership
as well), but to quell the inordinate appetite of American
corporations?
Judging by recent revelations on the part of Russia regarding the
work of NGOs and particular government agencies, that is a very
strong likelihood.
In September 2012, Russia’s Foreign Ministry informed the US
Agency for International Development (USAID) that, after
operating on the territory of Russia for 20 years, it would no
longer be welcome.
According to the Foreign Ministry, USAID was attempting to
manipulate the election processes in the country.
“The character of the agency's work … did not always comply
with the declared aims of cooperation in bilateral humanitarian
cooperation,” the Foreign Ministry said on its website.
“We are talking about issuing grants in an attempt to affect
the course of the political processes in the country, including
elections at different levels and institutions in civil
society."
Russian civil society has become fully mature, the Foreign
Ministry said, and did not need any "external
direction."
Over the last 20 years, USAID has pumped $1.8 billion into
various Ukrainian projects, which its website says help
“Ukrainians experience increased political freedoms, stronger
transparency guarantees, and more economic and social
opportunities.”
How much that massive investment of US taxpayer dollars was used
– knowingly or otherwise – to spread the seed of dissent
revolution in Ukraine is anybody’s guess. But one thing is
certain: the crisis in Ukraine has proven that the American
empire is a borderless, virtual construct, which needn’t
physically dominate a territory to possess it.
Like a fly-by-night vampire, the EU-IMF-NATO troika only requires
an invitation to enter and operate inside of a country before the
bloodletting, bank loans and corporate takeovers can begin.
Eventually, the debtor country is stuffed into an ill-fitting
NATO uniform and becomes a mere shadow of its former self.
Like so many international “patients” that came and went before, Ukraine will never be the same again.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.