By Haneul Na’avi | 2014.2.26
I have sometimes doubted the levels of foresight of today’s political leadership in the West, and, more and more, people are scrambling to find an accurate gauge to measure the madness of our foreign policy shapers. What used to be a policy of containment has now blossomed into a mature, wholesome, old-fashioned and classical bout of empire-induced madness, which has left the world embittered with unrequited aspirations for a more democratic future.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the existential threat of Communism no longer drove Europe’s finest to battle with Hammer-and-Sickle proletariats, and the leftover private army of defense contractors, Cold-War allies, and a prosperous petrodollar was too profitable to give up. To the oligarchs that have continued this dangerous game of global hegemony, boredom is the single biggest threat to their existence, and unfulfilled, antiquated conquests still run through their veins.
America’s current policy is about driving it home by fully and completely eradicating any world power that opposes its jingoist state agendas, and has installed a grid of economic serfdom and technocratic monitoring as damage control for those back home; a network that would make McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover envious. This conflict is what I would like to call the Cold War—reheated. It is the climactic finale to the battle between superpowers, orchestrated by multinational companies, weapons and armament corporations, private banks, and politicians ready to preserve the status quo or itching to finish family legacies.
Such conflicts have now taken shape in Kiev, as mass protests and rioters have left their country in shambles, armed Tatars have occupied Kiev’s parliament and Ukrainian far-right fascist groups have risen in power[i]. Vladimir Putin has remained busy with authorizing the releases of opponents such as Pussy Riot, Mikhail Kordovkovsky and Yulia Tymoshenko, hosting the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, and fighting terrorism in Volgograd against Chechnyan separatists. These acts of goodwill, unfortunately, have not appeased the Gods enough to keep at bay the vultures of Expansionism, which have begun circling above Georgia, Afghanistan, and doorsteps of the Kremlin.
What began as an outcry against recently ousted President Victor Yakunovich’s agreement with Russia to allow natural gas giant Gasprom to reduce its prices on fossil fuels in favor of pro-Russian concessions, and his refusal to grant Ukraine entry the European Union, has now blossomed into a full-out civil war within weeks and the alchemists of regime change have seen this as a golden opportunity to work their magic—just as they have in the Balkans, Libya, Iraq and Syria. Protesters voicing their disdain for the rejection have now capitulated in the worst way to groups and organizations that have 0% interest in the well-being of Ukrainian democracy. Veznik Kavkaza, political analyst and blogger, comments:
Today the Deputy Secretary of State of the USA, Williams Burns, arrives in Kiev to meet the speaker of the Rada, Alexander Turchinov, the leader of Batkivshchina Party, Arseny Yatsenyuk, and other MPs. Representatives of the Ministry of Finance and the National Economic Council of the USA will arrive together with Mr. Burns, they will work with the EU and the IMF on supporting the new Ukrainian authorities.[ii]
Kavkaza also comments that there have been moves to bypass Ukrainian constitutional law by rushing in elections by May 25th.
[…] the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs is surprised that “several European politicians quickly supported the declaration of the early presidential elections in Ukraine in May, even though the Agreement on settlement of the situation in Ukraine, which was signed on February 21st, requires that elections should take place only after providing a constitutional reform.
Kavkaza finally notes that Voice of Russia’s Dmitry Babich has openly commented on regime change for Ukraine:
[…] “The average wage in Bosnia is 420 euros today. 44% of the population is unemployed. The philosophy is the same as in Ukraine – let the good ideas win. According to them, there are ineffective countries – remains of the former Soviet Union, where the post-Soviet elite should be replaced. Certain undemocratic things could be done in favor of this. A takeover could be supported.”[iii]
EU and US figureheads have again moved to usher in new leadership, repeating the same pattern of what had been with the Arab League’s Libyan Transitional Council[iv] and the now-defunct Syrian National Council, headed by Bilderberg attendee Bassma Kodmani[v]. To Ukrainians, this is nothing new; the country experienced the unsuccessful Orange Revolution in 2004 and recent events are a continuation of it. These political boondoggles have literally been forgotten overnight for some and burned in the psyche of others who have already become aware of these repeat offenses, which have (literally) set the world on fire.
However, as some neoliberal groups rapture that Ukrainian “freedom fighters”[vi] are liberating their homeland, they overlook the familiar alarm echoed from Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Russia, Venezuela, Egypt and Syria: there are foreign-backed interests operating within the country to destroy it. Color revolutions are the linchpin of undemocratic regime change in countries via a program called CANVAS[vii], and its playbook has been outlined in books like From Dictator to Democracy, in which its author, Gene Sharp, is quoted:
The conclusion is a hard one. When one wants to bring down a dictatorship most effectively and with the least cost then one has four immediate tasks:
- One must strengthen the oppressed population themselves in their determination, self-confidence, and resistance skills;
- One must strengthen the independent social groups and in-stitutions of the oppressed people;
- One must create a powerful internal resistance force; and
- One must develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation and implement it skillfully[viii].
So, Western elites have not wasted time pushing for regime change in yet another government, regardless of calls for referendum or reform. The Assad government in Syria, at the start and apex of the civil war, demanded several times for constitutional reform so that Syrians could voice their grievances and vote on solutions. A Bloomberg journalist wrote that, “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad addressed his nation for the first time since June, offering a plan to end fighting there that was quickly rejected by opposition groups and Western governments.[ix]” Conversely, anti-Assad media campaigns were launched and Western powers rallied instead to finance the Free Syrian (now al-Nursa Front) Army by providing logistics, medical supplies, intel, and munitions[x].
Even after operations like this backfired in Libya with the murder of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Bengazi[xi] (he was smuggling weapons from Libya into Syria), these elites still haven’t learned that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Democracy is not present in Ukraine, but pro-fascist groups in Ukraine such as Svoboda and EuroMaiden[xii] and pro-Russian forces in Crimea such as the Tatars are. This dialectic, scientific polarization of groups is the classical Machiavellian strategy of “divide and conquer” that has been at the forefront of the Arab Spring movement.
Additionally, Victoria “FU-EU” Nuland previously used this rhetoric against Bashar al-Assad by saying, “It is yet another attempt by the regime to cling to power and does nothing to advance the Syrian people’s goal of a political transition,” […] His [Assad’s] plan “would only allow the regime to further perpetuate its bloody oppression of the Syrian people.[xiii]” Sounds lovely, but the same Assistant Secretary of State later got busted in a hubris-filled conversation with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in which she crassly discussed her evil genius blueprint for control:
[Nuland] “So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the U.N. help glue it and you know … fuck the EU,”
[Pyatt] “Exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it.” [xiv]
So, this foreign policy brush fire has become a staunch embarrassment, as the elite favor short-sighted gains over long-term solutions for the people. Consistently, neoliberal oligarchs pushing for regime change quickly follow-up with rampant privatization like what occurred in the Balkans[xv], or a broken government like in Mogadishu, and the original protesters find themselves joining the tragedy of Egypt—still at war with the establishment, divided, abandoned, and incomplete. Will they go from “freedom fighters” to “warlords” like those in Libya, Somalia, or Iraq? More importantly, unlike Libya and Egypt, Ukraine neighbors Russia and Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin gang have already readied a military force of 150,000 Russian troops that plan to hedge any threat coming from outside the country[xvi].
Legitimately, people have the right to become angry and frustrated over their nation’s problems. The people demand governments that serve popular interests instead of their own. People cry out for democracy and an end to kleptocratic regimes. That is the true nature of the Arab Spring; however, if the anger remains directionless, social engineers will exploit it. Once we recognize the symptoms, we can work towards creating true change—governments that provide for its citizens, limits its wars to defensive rather than preemptive ones, adheres to its constitutional practices, and protects the rights and liberties of people worldwide through diplomacy rather than barbarism.
This battle is dangerous because it insults the intelligence of global communities, and secondly, will spiral out of control should a nuclear superpower decide to arm itself against an existential threat from Western-backed intelligence agencies. This is a game where, if we join, we will become pawns, and no one wins once it is over.
[ii] Kavkaza, Veznik. 25 Feb. 2014. A Bosnian scenario for Ukraine. Veznik Kavkaza. Retrieved on 26 Feb. 2014. http://vestnikkavkaza.net/articles/politics/51800.html
[iv] Power, Dr. Susan. Nov 2012. The Role of the National Transitional Council in the Economic Reconstruction of Libya-Some Legal Challenges. Social Legal Studies Review, Vol. 1. Retrieved on 27 Feb. 2014. http://sociolegalstudiesreview.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Section-8-Article-6.pdf
[vii] F. William Engdahl. 7 Jan. 2014. Ukraine Protests Carefully Orchestrated: The Roles of CANVAS, US-Financed “Color Revolution Training Group”. Centre for Research on Globalization. Retrieved on 27 Jan 2014. http://tinyurl.com/odju73c
[viii] Sharp, Gene. From Dictatorship to Democracy-A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. 4th US Ed. Committee for the Restoration of Democracy in Burma, 1993. Retrieved from http://www.cfic.org.uk/media/From%20dictatorship%20to%20democracy.pdf
[xi] Kirkpatrick, David D. 28 Dec. 2013. A Deadly Mix in Benghazi. The New York Times, Retrieved on 26 Feb. 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
[xii] Blumenthal, Max. 25 Feb. 2014. Is the US Backing neo-Nazis in Ukraine? Salon. Retrieved on 27 Feb. 2014. http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/is_the_us_backing_neo_nazis_in_ukraine_partner/
[xiii] Baltaji and Drajem
[xv]Schwartz, Steven. 26 Dec. 2012. “Privatizing” Kosovo: The Madeline Albright Way. Gatestone Institute International Policy Council. Retrieved on 27 Feb. 2014. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3516/kosovo-privatization.