West realized who the real aggressor in Ukraine
American journalists are starting to see clearly after European ones. In serious material, entering into controversy with the "corporate media", more and more often there are accusations of aggression in Ukraine, not Russia, but the bloc of the Western powers. Objective journalism is skeptical about the variations on the theme “Russians are coming!” Performed by newspapers funded by the State Department.
An example is the recent article by Dave Lindorff published on the website "This Can't Be Happening".
According to the journalist, “corporate American media” is choking on the flow of “News”About the Russian“ invasion ”of Ukraine, as if it was now 1938, and German troops were marching in the direction of the Sudetenland and Austria. The author suggests looking at what is happening calmly and reasonably.
The journalist reminds that the eastern part of Ukraine is historically a part of Russia, and the western part in the past was the territory of Poland. Therefore, the country is ethnically and geographically divided into a “nation” of Ukrainians, most of whom live in the western part, and ethnic Russians, who represent a minority within the whole of Ukraine, but the majority are in the eastern part.
According to the publicist, the last legally elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown not without political support and not without US funding. The new government came to power through the coup. And the Russian minority in the east of the country regards it as a threat, since with it there were attempts to impose restrictions on the use of the Russian language. As a result, the “Ukrainian Russians,” the author writes, “revolted” and declared several regions autonomous republics. And the Crimea in general returned to Russia - through a referendum.
Then, the Ukrainian authorities, experiencing "strong pressure from the United States, including through the secret visit of the head of the CIA," began a "bloody" military campaign to suppress the uprising in Lugansk and Donetsk, as well as in Odessa and Mariupol.
Has Russia responded to this bloody action? The journalist admits that yes (“apparently”). How did she answer? Either by direct intervention (which Lindorf doubts), or by allowing Russian volunteers to cross the border or even encouraging them to join the fight. In any case, the result is already clear: the defeat of the Ukrainian forces, which are now almost everywhere retreating, is approaching.
Meanwhile, the American "corporate media" scream: "Russians are coming!" Russians are coming! America must act! ”
Further, the author quotes the famous progressive thinker (American), linguist and publicist Noam Chomsky.
The example that Chomsky gives is simple. He says: Imagine that the government of Mexico, lawfully elected by the people, was overthrown. Russia transferred five billion dollars to overthrow the putschists. The new government of Mexico has become, of course, pro-Russian. It immediately launched a military campaign against pro-American Mexicans and living in the 50-mile line south of the US border. Chomsky admits that there are such Mexicans there, although he is not sure of that.
Can we imagine, Chomsky asks, that the Mexican military began to indiscriminately bombard and bomb Juarez, Tijuana and other cities where even not just “pro-American” Mexicans live, but also many Americans who have out-of-town houses there or USA? Let's imagine that several thousand Americans in these areas were killed as a result of attacks by the Mexican military.
Will the US government fluctuate? Of course not, says Chomsky. Washington will act immediately. Society will demand blood, a forced march on Mexico City and the overthrow of a new Mexican government!
But this is only a projection of the Ukrainian crisis. The article further states that the United States made a “huge mistake” by supporting the overthrow of the legally elected pro-Russian government in Kiev and openly trying to turn Ukraine into the US orbit and even make it a member of NATO.
Russia reacted in the same way as the United States would have reacted in a similar situation if it were a question of the perceived threat to its national security.
According to Dave Lindorf, the US claims that Russia represents an aggressive threat to European security are simply absurd. Russia helps ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, who have to defend themselves against the “ruthless ethnic cleansing” launched by the “Ukrainian regime in Kiev.” The new government "ruthlessly attacks the cities and villages" of the Russian-speaking areas
The idea that the degree of Russian aid to the rebels is so great that it justifies even the "launch of a new cold war" - "incredible hypocrisy." Yes, this is hypocrisy, the publicist insists, especially if you remember the long history America, who loves to poke his nose in the affairs of other states around the globe.
The time has come for the United States to stop repeating about “Russian aggression”. In the end, who, if not the United States, reminds the journalist, from the end of World War II weapon and keep troops on their bases in Europe and insist on the expansion of NATO? Does not the United States threaten to deliver missiles "along the Russian borders" - missiles designed to bring down the Russian ICBM and thus turn Russia into a country vulnerable to the first US strike?
US warships with nuclear weapons were sent to the Black Sea (imagine the Russian naval battle group with nuclear weapons in the Gulf of Mexico!). The United States organized economic sanctions against Russia. And it was the United States that sponsored the overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine. All these are acts of American, not Russian aggression, comrade Lindorf sums up.
As for Russia, it showed “rather amazing” restraint. One that the United States has never demonstrated in its foreign policy - for example, with countries located south of the border.
So, like many other analysts (for example, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, whose article I recently reviewed “VO”), Dave Lindorf believes that two nations clash in Ukraine - Russian and Ukrainian (and the Ukrainians consider the publicist to be a nation in quotes). Faced the same Russians and Ukrainians in the United States, supporting the winter Maidan politically and with money. The coup in Kiev is a matter of the bloody hands of Washington, a great lover of prying into the affairs of different countries.
The split of Ukraine into two parts Washington is clearly not suitable. The White House has repeatedly declared the "territorial integrity" nezalezhnoy, and recently confirmed their position. And this time Ukraine was spoken about not anywhere, but at the US National Security Council. It would seem: what does the US national security have to do with it? But nonetheless…
As reported by the news service "Voices of America", Kathleen Hayden, a spokeswoman for the US National Security Council, made a statement.
“We welcome the unanimity of the European Council today,” she said, “declaring strong support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and preparing new sanctions, which will soon be considered. We work closely with the EU and other partners so that Russia responds for its illegal actions in Ukraine, including through additional economic sanctions. We continue to support Ukraine in its search for a diplomatic solution to the crisis and call on Russia to immediately withdraw its military units, including manpower and military equipment, from Ukraine and put an end to the criminal support of the separatists. ”
At the same time, the US Senate promotes the idea of arming the Ukrainian army.
Following the Republican senators McCain and King, through the TV channel "CBS" urged to urgently arm Kiev, so that Putin, defeating defenseless Ukraine, did not crush the Baltic States, Poland and further along the Soviet imperialist list, the chairman of the Senate Committee on External Relations Robert Menendez, who last week visited Estonia, Poland and Ukraine. His words brought the same "Voice of America."
While in Kiev, Mr. Menendez urged B.H. Obama to begin supplying arms to Ukraine, and at the same time expand sanctions against the banking, energy and military sectors of the Russian economy. Menendez is sure that thousands of Russian soldiers are helping the “separatists”. Next, the senator (for nothing that a Democrat, not a Republican), almost word for word, repeated McCain, saying that the United States, the EU and NATO "should give Ukrainians a chance to protect themselves."
All these statements suggest that the “Ukrainian crisis,” the culprit in which Moscow has been appointed, is planned in the US as a long-term one. It may well be that Washington, who has long wished to sabotage Gazprom from Europe, also planned a “gas crisis.” Papa Biden and his son are eager to extract gas in the shale (on the territory of Novorossia) on non-concession gas, and then sell it to Europe, and they do not need a competitor in the person of Mr. Miller.
As for Poroshenko, he, when he was Minister of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine, promised to warm almost the entire European Union with shale gas. And in July, 2014, already being president, commenting on the signing of the economic part of the Association Agreement with the EU, Poroshenko among the promising areas in which Ukraine will cooperate with the EU, called just shale oil. By his words, “Shale gas ... needs new markets, opportunities and investments.”
Who will suffer in the case of "resolute support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine"? Europe. Instead of a stable Gazprom, it will get a cat in a bag around the year of 2020, and instead of peace on its borders, the cold war 2.0, with Ukraine as its hot heart (and the European PRO is the liver). For NATO will not accept into its ranks a state with territorial problems (according to the statute is not supposed to), and neither Washington nor Kiev are actually seeking friendship with Moscow, peace and negotiations with those whom they call "separatists" (soft option) and "terrorists" (hard option). The sanctioned opposition against Russia, initiated by the USA, will drag on, and Europe will have to count new losses every year.
As a result, a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian crisis is not even planned. Kiev will not take a political decision on the federalization or even independence of Novorossia, wishing to “return the Crimea”. Obama will not allow. Yes, and for Poroshenko it will be like a stigma for the rest of his life: he lost to “Colorado” and “quilted jackets”! It would be better to sell candy, honestly ... But now, nobody needs candy either.
Only “separatists” can put a certain point in carrying out the line of splitting the country into two parts. If the White House does not dare to arm the Ukrainian army and provoke Russia into a big war, it is these people who are fighting today for the interests of the inhabitants of Novorossia will soon make political decisions and draw borders.
An example is the recent article by Dave Lindorff published on the website "This Can't Be Happening".
According to the journalist, “corporate American media” is choking on the flow of “News”About the Russian“ invasion ”of Ukraine, as if it was now 1938, and German troops were marching in the direction of the Sudetenland and Austria. The author suggests looking at what is happening calmly and reasonably.
The journalist reminds that the eastern part of Ukraine is historically a part of Russia, and the western part in the past was the territory of Poland. Therefore, the country is ethnically and geographically divided into a “nation” of Ukrainians, most of whom live in the western part, and ethnic Russians, who represent a minority within the whole of Ukraine, but the majority are in the eastern part.
According to the publicist, the last legally elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown not without political support and not without US funding. The new government came to power through the coup. And the Russian minority in the east of the country regards it as a threat, since with it there were attempts to impose restrictions on the use of the Russian language. As a result, the “Ukrainian Russians,” the author writes, “revolted” and declared several regions autonomous republics. And the Crimea in general returned to Russia - through a referendum.
Then, the Ukrainian authorities, experiencing "strong pressure from the United States, including through the secret visit of the head of the CIA," began a "bloody" military campaign to suppress the uprising in Lugansk and Donetsk, as well as in Odessa and Mariupol.
Has Russia responded to this bloody action? The journalist admits that yes (“apparently”). How did she answer? Either by direct intervention (which Lindorf doubts), or by allowing Russian volunteers to cross the border or even encouraging them to join the fight. In any case, the result is already clear: the defeat of the Ukrainian forces, which are now almost everywhere retreating, is approaching.
Meanwhile, the American "corporate media" scream: "Russians are coming!" Russians are coming! America must act! ”
Further, the author quotes the famous progressive thinker (American), linguist and publicist Noam Chomsky.
The example that Chomsky gives is simple. He says: Imagine that the government of Mexico, lawfully elected by the people, was overthrown. Russia transferred five billion dollars to overthrow the putschists. The new government of Mexico has become, of course, pro-Russian. It immediately launched a military campaign against pro-American Mexicans and living in the 50-mile line south of the US border. Chomsky admits that there are such Mexicans there, although he is not sure of that.
Can we imagine, Chomsky asks, that the Mexican military began to indiscriminately bombard and bomb Juarez, Tijuana and other cities where even not just “pro-American” Mexicans live, but also many Americans who have out-of-town houses there or USA? Let's imagine that several thousand Americans in these areas were killed as a result of attacks by the Mexican military.
Will the US government fluctuate? Of course not, says Chomsky. Washington will act immediately. Society will demand blood, a forced march on Mexico City and the overthrow of a new Mexican government!
But this is only a projection of the Ukrainian crisis. The article further states that the United States made a “huge mistake” by supporting the overthrow of the legally elected pro-Russian government in Kiev and openly trying to turn Ukraine into the US orbit and even make it a member of NATO.
Russia reacted in the same way as the United States would have reacted in a similar situation if it were a question of the perceived threat to its national security.
According to Dave Lindorf, the US claims that Russia represents an aggressive threat to European security are simply absurd. Russia helps ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, who have to defend themselves against the “ruthless ethnic cleansing” launched by the “Ukrainian regime in Kiev.” The new government "ruthlessly attacks the cities and villages" of the Russian-speaking areas
The idea that the degree of Russian aid to the rebels is so great that it justifies even the "launch of a new cold war" - "incredible hypocrisy." Yes, this is hypocrisy, the publicist insists, especially if you remember the long history America, who loves to poke his nose in the affairs of other states around the globe.
The time has come for the United States to stop repeating about “Russian aggression”. In the end, who, if not the United States, reminds the journalist, from the end of World War II weapon and keep troops on their bases in Europe and insist on the expansion of NATO? Does not the United States threaten to deliver missiles "along the Russian borders" - missiles designed to bring down the Russian ICBM and thus turn Russia into a country vulnerable to the first US strike?
US warships with nuclear weapons were sent to the Black Sea (imagine the Russian naval battle group with nuclear weapons in the Gulf of Mexico!). The United States organized economic sanctions against Russia. And it was the United States that sponsored the overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine. All these are acts of American, not Russian aggression, comrade Lindorf sums up.
As for Russia, it showed “rather amazing” restraint. One that the United States has never demonstrated in its foreign policy - for example, with countries located south of the border.
So, like many other analysts (for example, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, whose article I recently reviewed “VO”), Dave Lindorf believes that two nations clash in Ukraine - Russian and Ukrainian (and the Ukrainians consider the publicist to be a nation in quotes). Faced the same Russians and Ukrainians in the United States, supporting the winter Maidan politically and with money. The coup in Kiev is a matter of the bloody hands of Washington, a great lover of prying into the affairs of different countries.
The split of Ukraine into two parts Washington is clearly not suitable. The White House has repeatedly declared the "territorial integrity" nezalezhnoy, and recently confirmed their position. And this time Ukraine was spoken about not anywhere, but at the US National Security Council. It would seem: what does the US national security have to do with it? But nonetheless…
As reported by the news service "Voices of America", Kathleen Hayden, a spokeswoman for the US National Security Council, made a statement.
“We welcome the unanimity of the European Council today,” she said, “declaring strong support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and preparing new sanctions, which will soon be considered. We work closely with the EU and other partners so that Russia responds for its illegal actions in Ukraine, including through additional economic sanctions. We continue to support Ukraine in its search for a diplomatic solution to the crisis and call on Russia to immediately withdraw its military units, including manpower and military equipment, from Ukraine and put an end to the criminal support of the separatists. ”
At the same time, the US Senate promotes the idea of arming the Ukrainian army.
Following the Republican senators McCain and King, through the TV channel "CBS" urged to urgently arm Kiev, so that Putin, defeating defenseless Ukraine, did not crush the Baltic States, Poland and further along the Soviet imperialist list, the chairman of the Senate Committee on External Relations Robert Menendez, who last week visited Estonia, Poland and Ukraine. His words brought the same "Voice of America."
While in Kiev, Mr. Menendez urged B.H. Obama to begin supplying arms to Ukraine, and at the same time expand sanctions against the banking, energy and military sectors of the Russian economy. Menendez is sure that thousands of Russian soldiers are helping the “separatists”. Next, the senator (for nothing that a Democrat, not a Republican), almost word for word, repeated McCain, saying that the United States, the EU and NATO "should give Ukrainians a chance to protect themselves."
All these statements suggest that the “Ukrainian crisis,” the culprit in which Moscow has been appointed, is planned in the US as a long-term one. It may well be that Washington, who has long wished to sabotage Gazprom from Europe, also planned a “gas crisis.” Papa Biden and his son are eager to extract gas in the shale (on the territory of Novorossia) on non-concession gas, and then sell it to Europe, and they do not need a competitor in the person of Mr. Miller.
As for Poroshenko, he, when he was Minister of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine, promised to warm almost the entire European Union with shale gas. And in July, 2014, already being president, commenting on the signing of the economic part of the Association Agreement with the EU, Poroshenko among the promising areas in which Ukraine will cooperate with the EU, called just shale oil. By his words, “Shale gas ... needs new markets, opportunities and investments.”
Who will suffer in the case of "resolute support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine"? Europe. Instead of a stable Gazprom, it will get a cat in a bag around the year of 2020, and instead of peace on its borders, the cold war 2.0, with Ukraine as its hot heart (and the European PRO is the liver). For NATO will not accept into its ranks a state with territorial problems (according to the statute is not supposed to), and neither Washington nor Kiev are actually seeking friendship with Moscow, peace and negotiations with those whom they call "separatists" (soft option) and "terrorists" (hard option). The sanctioned opposition against Russia, initiated by the USA, will drag on, and Europe will have to count new losses every year.
As a result, a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian crisis is not even planned. Kiev will not take a political decision on the federalization or even independence of Novorossia, wishing to “return the Crimea”. Obama will not allow. Yes, and for Poroshenko it will be like a stigma for the rest of his life: he lost to “Colorado” and “quilted jackets”! It would be better to sell candy, honestly ... But now, nobody needs candy either.
Only “separatists” can put a certain point in carrying out the line of splitting the country into two parts. If the White House does not dare to arm the Ukrainian army and provoke Russia into a big war, it is these people who are fighting today for the interests of the inhabitants of Novorossia will soon make political decisions and draw borders.
Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information