martes, 4 de marzo de 2014

U.S-NATO ENCIRCLEMENT OF RUSSIA



U.S. AND NATO ENCIRCLEMENT OF RUSSIA

[Here only extracts]

The Big Picture: The U.S. and NATO Have Been Trying to Encircle Russia Militarily Since 1991

INTRODUCTION
by Hugo Adan, Marzo 4, 2014

The history of ilegal U.S.  intervention on Russian’s domestic  affairs goes further back. David Foglesong in “America's Secret War Against Bolshevism: U.S. Intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1917-1920” said that “American intervention in Russia had both anti-German and anti-Bolshevik objectives, though the latter became predominant (p. 104)”  During Woodrow Wilson administration the U.S. set “clandestine military and economic operations against the Soviet government”. But Wilson felt the need to disguise this anti-red hostility because it "would disillusion left-leaning Americans and Europeans." Hide our hand- house  advised Wilson, "to limit the possibility for damage to America's idealistic image" (pp. 65, 94). “The American government undertook a series of covert actions against Soviet Russia, secretly giving money to its enemies. These were the "patriotic," democratic Russians, the "better elements," the "intelligent and property-owning classes" of Russian society, which the American government could help to "restore order".  http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=489

Gibson Bell Smith autjor of “The U.S. Army in Russia, 1918 – 1920” said that Wilson approved the dispatch of eight thousand men to Siberia to support the Cossacks, anti-Bolshevik guerrilla forces, and even Japanese army troops looking to bring Siberia into Japan's sphere of influence. “It would be the first, and only, time American troops were on Russian soil”. These troops never returned, they were defeated by Trotsky army. Reason for this intervention: “the promotion of democracy and self-determination. But first and foremost, Wilson  wanted to protect the billion-dollar investment of American guns and equipment along the Trans-Siberian Railway. Vast quantities of supplies had been sent when America believed that Russia was capable of fighting and winning against the Central Powers in the spring of 1917” http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/winter/us-army-in-russia-1.html

Since then the story tales of “restore order”,  “democracy  and  self-determination  were used for the purpose of  regime change”.  Preserve such idealistic  image, suggested Wilson.  We don’t do it anymore.  We practice naked  aggression and genocide, we  destroy,  invade and plunder foreign countries with impunity.  We are above the law. There will never be a Nuremberg Tribunals  against us. We are an exception to the rule. We made the rules, the UN belongs to us, the ICC decides that we decide.  How long this will last?  Nothing is eternal, empire die and ours is collapsing.

It is true that we don’t need to preserve  the  idealistic  image recommended  by President Wilson. The communication revolution will make it impossible. Everybody  can see in Libya and Syria the order we  promote. The whole world  can see in Iraq and Afganistan the peaceful democracy  we aimed.

Regarding  self determination, why not in Ukraine?  We don’t need to destroy a whole country, as we did it in Yugoslavia. We don’t need to bomb Crimea as we did with the Serbian to impose our sense of   autonomy in Kosovo.  If  we decide war?  how sure are we that Russia, China and other countries will not bomb America too?. If we don’t  plan to bomb but sending troops,  Are we sure that our troops will return? Are McCain and Ms Nuland ready to send their sons, daughters or grand-children to the war against self-determination? .

This is a matter of principles, not  a matter of looking for angels. We need to preserve principles more than ever. Not as an idealist image. We need real and new democracy.  We need order and peace. And we need to support their right to self-determination, if people in one region decided in Referendum so. We need  to stand for what is right, it does not matter if we are alone at the beginning. Soon we will be the majority.  We will win!!

========= 

BACK TO
By WashingtonsBlog  March 3, 2014

The fact that the U.S. has allegedly paid billions of dollars to anti-Russian forces in Ukraine – and even purportedly picked the Ukrainian president – has to be seen in context.

Veteran New York Times reporter Steven Kinzer notes at the Boston Globe:
From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. [Background here, here and here.] It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began expanding eastward. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies.”

Stephen Cohen – professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University who has long focused on Russia – explained this weekend on CNN:
We are witnessing as we talk the making possibly of the worst history of our lifetime. We are watching the descending of a new cold war divide between west and east, only this time, it is not in far away Berlin, it’s right on Russia’s borders through the historical civilization in Ukraine. It’s a crisis of historic magnitude. If you ask how we got in it, how we got into the crisis, and how therefore do we get out, it is time to stop asking why Putin – why Putin is doing this or that, but ask about the American policy, and the European Union policy that led to this moment.
***
I don’t know if you your listeners or views remember George Kennan. He was considered [a] great strategic thinker about Russia among American diplomats but he warned when we expanded NATO [under Bill Clinton], that this was the most fateful mistake of American foreign policy and that it would lead to a new Cold War. George lived to his hundreds, died a few years ago, but his truth goes marching on. The decision to move NATO beginning in the 90′s continuing under Bush and continuing under Obama, is right now on Russia’s borders.
And if you want to know for sure, and I have spent a lot of time in Moscow, if you want to know what the Russian power elite thinks Ukraine is about, it is about bringing it into NATO. One last point, that so-called economic partnership that Yanukovych, the elected president of Ukraine did not sign, and that set off the streets – the protests in the streets in November, which led to this violence in and confrontation today, that so-called economic agreement included military clauses which said that Ukraine by signing this so called civilization agreement had to abide by NATO military policy. This is what this is about from the Russian point of view, the ongoing western march towards post Soviet Russia.

Jonathan Steele writes at the Guardian

Both John Kerry’s threats to expel Russia from the G8 and the Ukrainian government’s plea for Nato aid mark a dangerous escalation of a crisis that can easily be contained if cool heads prevail. Hysteria seems to be the mood in Washington and Kiev, with the new Ukrainian prime minister claiming, “We are on the brink of disaster” as he calls up army reserves in response to Russian military movements in Crimea.
Were he talking about the country’s economic plight he would have a point. Instead, along with much of the US and European media, he was over-dramatising developments in the east, where Russian speakers are understandably alarmed after the new Kiev authorities scrapped a law allowing Russian as an official language in their areas. They see it as proof that the anti-Russian ultra-nationalists from western Ukraine who were the dominant force in last month’s insurrection still control it. Eastern Ukrainians fear similar tactics of storming public buildings could be used against their elected officials.
Kerry’s rush to punish Russia and Nato’s decision to respond to Kiev’s call by holding a meeting of member states’ ambassadors in Brussels today were mistakes. Ukraine is not part of the alliance, so none of the obligations of common defence come into play. Nato should refrain from interfering in Ukraine by word or deed. The fact that it insists on getting engaged reveals the elephant in the room: underlying the crisis in Crimea and Russia’s fierce resistance to potential changes is Nato’s undisguised ambition to continue two decades of expansion into what used to be called “post-Soviet space”, led by Bill Clinton and taken up by successive administrations in Washington. At the back of Pentagon minds, no doubt, is the dream that a US navy will one day replace the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Crimean ports of Sevastopol and Balaclava.
***
Vladimir Putin’s troop movements in Crimea, which are supported by most Russians, are of questionable legality under the terms of the peace and friendship treaty that Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997. But their illegality is considerably less clear-cut than that of the US-led invasion of Iraq, or of Afghanistan, where the UN security council only authorised the intervention several weeks after it had happened. [Indeed, top American leaders admit that the Iraq war was for reasons different than publicly stated. And the U.S. military sticks its nose in other countries' business all over the world.  And see this.] And Russia’s troop movements can be reversed if the crisis abates. That would require the restoration of the language law in eastern Ukraine and firm action to prevent armed groups of anti-Russian nationalists threatening public buildings there.

Again, we don’t believe that there are angels on any side.  But we do believe that everyone has to take a step back, look at the bigger picture, calm down and reach a negotiated diplomatic resolution.

And see this, this, this and this (interview with a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

==========  

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario