Who creates problems?
In 1933, the Holodomor raged in Ukraine. Local farmers were "dispossessed" as a result of Soviet collectivization, and their property was transferred to the collective farms. According to various estimates, the Holodomor claimed the lives of two to nine million people.Journalist Walter Duranty, who wrote reports from Ukraine in the spirit of Stalinist propaganda, was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his work.
In November, 1933, US President Franklin Roosevelt, invited the then USSR Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov to establish diplomatic relations between the United States and the bloody regime of Stalin.
1 August 1991, four months before Ukraine declared its independence from the USSR, George W. Bush warned the Kiev authorities:
“Americans will not support those who crave independence in order to replace external tyranny with local despotism. They will not support those who promote suicidal nationalism and ethnic hatred. ”
This again suggests that the independence of Ukraine was not in the interests of America. From 1933 to 1991, Ukraine was of no interest to America. Bush Sr. was against it.
Since when is the question of whose flag will fly over Donetsk or the Crimea, it has become so important for us that we are ready to arm the Ukrainian army for war with pro-Russian militias and are considering providing NATO guarantees for Kiev, which will lead us to the inevitable war with a nuclear power-Russia?
All American presidents, starting with Roosevelt, believed that the United States could not remain isolated from the rest of the rulers of the world's largest nations.
So, Eisenhower invited Khrushchev to tour the United States after the head of the USSR drowned the Hungarian revolution in blood. And after Khrushchev put rockets to Cuba, Kennedy called for dialogue at an American university.
For several weeks after the Warsaw Pact countries forcibly broke off the Prague Spring in August 1968, Johnson was looking for a reason to meet with the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers Alexei Kosygin.
After the South Korean "Boeing" was hit by a Soviet fighter in 1983, Ronald Reagan realized that it was necessary to organize a summit.
So, as we can see, all American presidents, starting from Roosevelt and ending with George Bush Sr., sought not to lose contact with the Kremlin, and after the incidents much more serious than those that occurred in Ukraine.
Whatever these leaders may think about the Soviet dictators who blocked Berlin, enslaved Eastern Europe, supplied missiles to Cuba, armed the Arabs to fight Israel, however, they tried to maintain diplomatic relations with Moscow and engage it in solving international problems.
They understood that disaster can be avoided only by working together.
How, then, can it be explained that the current political elite of the United States calls on Russia to resist, isolate it, cripple its economy and make Putin a moral and political leper with whom decent people, influential government officials cannot have common affairs?
What did Putin do that could be compared with the suppression of the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia? In Ukraine, he responded to the coup d'état, with the permission of the United States, which resulted in the democratically elected ally of Moscow. He captured the Crimea, in which the Black Sea Fleet is located, which Russia traditionally moor from the 18 of the 20th century, and the population is pro-Russian. This is nothing more than the usual geopolitics of a powerful country.
And although Putin has stationed troops at the Russian-Ukrainian border, he did not invade the territory of Lugansk or Donetsk. Does he look like an imperialist of the era of the Romanovs or Stalin, who reached the Elbe?
As for the downed Malaysian airliner, Putin seems to have nothing to do with it, because American intelligence did not provide information about the guilt of the Russian side.
And today the leading voice of the Republican Party - John McCain - calls the White House and Obama personally "cowardly", just because he does not equip Ukrainians for war with pro-Russian "separatists".
Suppose that Putin responded to the invasion of Washington and Kiev in the South-East. What would we do then?
John Bolton has the answer: take Ukraine to NATO.
I translate into a human language: this means that the United States and NATO will go to war with Russia if necessary. None of the previous American presidents would ever fight with Russia over Ukraine.
Putin’s motives are simple and straightforward. He wants the respect that world power deserves. He positions himself as a defender of the “Russian abroad”. He is ready to play from a position of hard power.
It allows the United States to fly to Afghanistan through the territory of Russia, cooperates with us on the issue of the Iranian atom, helped the United States rid Syria of chemical weapons, launches American astronauts into orbit, fighting against terrorism, but one thing - I do not agree with us about Syria and the Crimea.
But what are the motives of those politicians on our part who are looking for any loophole to resume the cold war?
Are such violent actions by American politicians not a desperate desire to become like Churchill, to feel like heroes as they felt during the Cold War, which ended a long time ago?
And who then creates problems after that? USA or Putin?
- Patrick Buchanan, political commentator, writer and politician, was senior adviser to Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan
- http://www.vz.ru/opinions/2014/7/25/697226.html
Information