In a long overdue decision, Russian President Putin after consulting with the National Security Council officially recognized the two breakaway republics of Ukraine, Donetsk and Luhansk. Subsequently, the Russian parliament unanimously approved the decision and authorized deployment of Russian peace-keeping forces in the Donbas region.
Putin could have recognized the sovereignty of the breakaway
republics as soon as Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014. But being a
pacifist, he kept waiting for eight years in the futile hope that better sense
would ultimately prevail in Kiev.
After it became evident, however, that Volodymyr Zelensky
and his predecessor Petro Poroshenko have struck an irrevocable Faustian pact
with the NATO devil, he was left with no other choice than to protect Russia’s
paramount security interests at any cost, specifically from the existential
threat emanating along Russia’s western borders after the deployment of the NATO
troops, strategic armaments, nuclear-capable missiles and air force squadrons
in the Eastern Europe aimed at Russia, and the NATO forces alongside its
regional clients provocatively exercising so-called “freedom of navigation”
right in the Black Sea and conducting joint military exercises and naval
drills.
Although being dubbed “an invasion” by the corporate media,
the majority population of the breakaway Donbas region speaks Russian and
cheered the deployment of peace-keeping forces in the hope of restoring peace
and stability following the turmoil and violence claiming 14,000 lives during
the eight-year conflict.
Nevertheless, the Ukraine crisis is only a sequel to the
most momentous event of the twentieth century: the dissolution of the former
Soviet Union, rebellions in the Eastern Europe and the subsequent break-up and
massacres in the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, a succinct description of the
nefarious plot to destabilize the Cold War rival by the NATO powers wouldn’t be
out of place.
Many erudite Eurasian historiographers I’ve had the pleasure
of interacting with were under the misconception that the alleged economic
collapse in the former Soviet Republics in the late-eighties due to presumed
intrinsic flaws in the Marxist-Leninist ideology precipitated the dissolution
of the Soviet Union in Dec. 1991. Nothing could be more asinine than favoring
exploitative capitalism with its supposed intrinsic strengths over egalitarian
communism in the backdrop of the Soviet dissolution debacle.
The Soviet Union, with vast natural resources, territorial
possessions spanning almost the entire northern landmass of Eurasia and
technologically innovative workforce, stood the ground despite waging the over
70-year Cold War from 1917 to 1991 against the neocolonial powers.
With the vast oil and gas reserves, Russia and several
former constituent republics of the Soviet Union, including Kazakhstan,
Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, are the top exporters of energy to the
industrialized world alongside the Gulf States. Without the Russian natural
gas, European would freeze to death in harsh winters, or as Putin facetiously
quipped: “They’d soon be gathering firewood to keep themselves warm.”
Even if Russia dismantled its cutting-edge industrial sector
on a whim and stopped producing value-added goods, the exportable raw materials
produced in the Eurasian behemoth would be enough to sustain the population for
many centuries. Recently announced economic sanctions on Russia and halting the
certification of Nord Stream 2 is going to hurt Washington’s European allies
more than having any marked effect on Russia’s thriving economy.
Any external force, no matter how resourceful, could never
have unraveled the super power of the era, but it succumbed to subversive
internal threats, first due to destabilizing force of ostensibly popular and
democratic rebellions in the Baltic and East European states in the late
eighties, then due to fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent reunification of
Germany in Oct. 1990, effectively placing the East German communists under the
neocolonial tutelage of capitalist exploiters, and the last nail in the coffin
was struck after Boris Yeltsin was elected the president of the constituent
Russian Republic in the June 1991 elections, precipitating a power struggle
between communist leadership at the center and nationalist leadership in the
republic.
In the ensuing cataclysmic events, on August 19, 1991, a
cabal of Soviet apparatchik, including Mikhail Gorbachev’s vice president,
prime minister, defense minister and KGB chief, organized a coup plot and
placed Gorbachev under house arrest. The coup organizers expected some popular
support but the public sympathy in large metropolitan cities was against them.
The coup attempt was thwarted after three days and Gorbachev
returned as the president of the Soviet Union. But not only the power of the
presidency was compromised but also the vulnerability of the central leadership
was exposed in the eyes of the public following the foiled coup plot. That was
the point of no return. It became obvious the status quo could not be sustained
in the crumbling Soviet Union.
The Glasnost and Perestroika liberalizing policies initiated
by Mikhail Gorbachev were especially significant because they shine light on
the impact of new technology on the social and political life of a country. The
late-eighties was the era of the advent of satellite television in the
developing world and it coincided with the political developments in the Soviet
Union.
The Soviet masses, which until then were acquainted with
news and information only from national media, were exposed to pernicious
influence of imperialist media. The foreign-funded corporate media, including
CNN, VOA, BBC and host of other television channels, radio stations and print
media, capitalized on the opportunity to sow the seeds of discontentment among
viewers, specifically among non-Russian ethnicities of the former Soviet
Republics, by insidiously depicting contrasting lifestyles among the
extravagant Western bourgeoisie and the frugality and egalitarianism typically
favored in socialist communities.
As with the leadership of the rest of Baltic and East
European states conniving with NATO powers and stabbing the former patron in
the back, the imperialist stooges, Volodymyr Zelensky and his equally
treacherous predecessor Petro Poroshenko, elected presidents through sham
electoral process in the bourgeois democracy called Ukraine, represent nobody
but the avaricious and exploitative entrepreneurial oligarchs wanting to expand
business empires and attract foreign investments by pandering to the corporate
interests of the Western Europe and North America.
Centralized governments across the world are run by behemoth
state bureaucracies. Politicians are merely show pieces meant to lend
legitimacy to supposedly “elected governments” and to cater to interests of
business elites which they really represent. Disenfranchised masses are least
bothered whether government is being run by autocrats or by “elected
representatives” of the bourgeoisie, though the political and business elites
often get restless and mobilize their support base to demand a share in the
power pie.
The national security and defense policies of modern nation
states are formulated by civil-military bureaucracy, dubbed as the deep state.
Whereas trade and economic policies are determined by corporate interests and
business cartels within the framework of neocolonial economic order imposed on
the post-colonial world by corporate America following the signing of the
Bretton Woods Accords at the end of the Second World War in 1945.
Purportedly democratic governments, elected through heavily
manipulated electoral process, are reduced to performing ceremonial gimmicks
and are meant only to serve as showpieces to legitimize militarist and capitalist
exploitation.
Not only the disenfranchised masses of Ukraine but
underprivileged proletariats of all the former Soviet constituent republics and
allied states in Eastern Europe share historical, political and cultural bonds
with Russia. Ensuring the collective security of Eurasian nations is Russia’s
responsibility as a successor to the former Soviet Union.
Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the East
European states didn’t become democracies overnight as projected in the
parallel reality of media narratives constructed by spin-doctors, instead they
became capitalist oligarchies ruled by ultra-rich business elites having stakes
in the global economy and depositing lucrative profits from flourishing
business enterprises into Western financial institutions.
The worst thing capitalist exploitation and neoliberal
developmentalism do to organic societies is that they breed parasitic
consumerist classes of filthy rich bourgeois hungry for foreign investment,
particularly from the deep pockets of the multinational corporations based in
the financial districts of North America and Western Europe, and wanting to
expand their business empires at any cost, even if they have to sell their
nations out to highest bidder for personal ambitions.
Such comprador bourgeois erode nations from within. They are
wary of egalitarian socialist ideologies emphasizing equitable distribution of
wealth, hence undermining financial stakes of oligarchs. In order to scuttle
political ideologies favoring the interests of disenfranchised masses, they
generously provide funds to pernicious media organizations and political forces
insidiously promoting so-called economic liberalization, free trade and
globalization, even if entire nations have to bear the cost of such market
fundamentalism.
It was not a coincidence that the Soviet Union was dissolved
in December 1991 and the Maastricht Treaty that consolidated the European
Community and laid the groundwork for the European Union was signed in February
1992. The basic purpose of the EU has been nothing more than to entice the
former communist states of the Eastern Europe into the folds of the Western
capitalist bloc by offering financial incentives and inducements.
Even the Ukraine crisis was stoked by oligarchs in November
2013 by staging Euromaidan protests against the incumbent government after
Viktor Yanukovych suspended the preparations for the implementation of an
association agreement with the European Union and threatened to take Ukraine
back into the folds of the Russian sphere of influence by accepting billions of
dollars loan package offered by Vladimir Putin.
All the grandstanding and moral posturing of unity and equality aside, the hopelessly neoliberal institution, the EU, in effect, is nothing more than the civilian counterpart of the trans-Atlantic military alliance against the former Soviet Union, the NATO, that employs a much more subtle and insidious tactic of economic warfare to win over political allies and to isolate adversaries that dare to sidestep from the global trade and economic policies as laid down by the Western capitalist bloc.
No comments:
Post a Comment