"Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 6)" by B.J. Sabri

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.

Source: Dissident Voice

Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 6)

by B.J. Sabri / March 16th, 2024

Why is the United States so hostile, bellicose, and determined to engage Russia in a war? Searching for clues to answer the question necessarily leads to decode how U.S. ruling circles debate and adopt anti-Russian policies. Could clinical psychology—e.g., irrational, mortal fear of the Russian power—be a factor? No. Although it could be used in petty competitive settings, psychology is subjective and has no place in international politics. Further, one can play psychology but cannot avoid being trapped in it. Further, Politics, be domestic or international, is an open arena for rational processes and decision-making. Could it be then that tangible imperialistic motives are what we are looking for? Yes. Based on documented history, America’s anti-Russian hostility is designed and manufactured for the purpose of empire and domination.

Two traits define this hostility. (a) How the United States views itself in crafted ideological terms aggrandizing itself and role in the world, and (b) how it views Russia through the same lens. Simply, American ideologues and policy makers have been consistent in viewing Russia as a formidable, untenable, and non-negotiable foe presenting a structural incompatibility with their global domination project. Aside from hyper-militarized capitalism, and entities interconnected by interests and mutual promotion such as the military industry, all satellite and service industries, political class, interventionists, ideologues of empire, other important factors are primary instruments in defining and amplifying that view. A few examples include:

• Historically developed and encouraged ideology based on military strength and sheer domination as a path to empire is a factor. Karl Rove (a supremacist political theoretician typifying the fascist American system, and a senior advisor to George W. Bush) synthesized the basics of that ideology as follows:

We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. [sic]

• With the exception of a different political system and a new national identity, post-independence American ruling classes and population remained essentially British. The new Americans inherited language, culture, attitudes, mentality, criminal bent, ideology, and morbid lust for bloody colonialist expansions. In short, royal Britain was the inspiring and guiding matrix for the American republic, its worldview, and its philosophy of power. The point: the utter ugliness and cynical criminality of the British model of colonialism, imperialism, racism, and ideology of domination had become American. (Was it not a British novelist (Rudyard Kipling) who inspired and suggested to the United States to build a “recycled British empire” with his “The White Man’s Burden”?)
  • The Zionization of the United States is a subject by itself, and goes beyond the scope of this work. Suffice to say, from Harry Truman onward, the rise to power of American Jewish Zionists (and their American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and myriad other organizations) have added new dimensions to the U.S. imperialist system. They pushed it to the path of no return—so far—on all matters of foreign policy and wars. The formula behind this push is intuitive. The more the United States aggressively and militarily engages the world, the more Israel becomes the direct beneficiary and controller of the imperialist state via American Zionists.
• Limited cultural literacy: simply stated (but without generalizing), in the United States, ruling classes and society, are clueless—by choice, by careers, and by indoctrination—about how the world works. Said differently, encouraged, cultivated, and socially accepted ignorance is what defines the United States despite positive results in many areas.

Molly Boigon (producer and reporter for Learning Curve) gave a tiny glimpse on the degradation of the American culture with her taking on the widely spread practice of hoaxes and the messages they convey. To make sure, hoaxes are manifestations of mass culture—especially when coupled to political schemes. She opens her article, “The Great Bamboozle: How America Has Become the Land of the Hoax “with these words,

“From Pizza gate to Rachel Dolezal, “A Million Little Pieces” to “Love And Consequences,” fake Indians to fake Holocaust survivors, the United States has a past rife with hoaxes, and likely, a history peppered with them, too.”

On academic level, philosopher Alan Bloom gave an impressive appraisal of the abysmal status of the American political culture with his book, The Closing of the American Mind (1988). And before I forget, I must add William J. Lederer’s remarkable work, A Nation of Sheep published in 1961

Statement: the American system thrives on all possible means to advance its world agenda. Remark: considering its devious and corecitive mechanisms of control, domestically and internationally, it is quite easy to understand the basic condition pitting the United States against Russia. By taming and indoctrinating the American crowds on how to view Russia, China, Arab states, Korea, Iran, Israel, South Africa, etc., U.S. ruling circles have succeeded at creating fertile but dangerous grounds for a global U.S. imperialist agenda with little, if not existent, domestic opposition.

To see how all this plays in the U.S. political processes, consider the following event. In a Senate hearing held on January 24, 2000 to discuss so-called “Russian Threats to United States Security in the Post-Cold War Era”, a passage from the transcript solemnly declares:

“Russia continues to be our top security concern, even without the adversarial relationship of the cold war. Russia still possesses 20,000-plus nuclear weapons. Wide-spread corruption and the absence of honest and accountable internal governmental administrative functions threatens Russia’s slow and erratic evolution toward democracy.” [sic]

Paragraph Analysis

• The Sentence, “Russia continues to be our top security concern, etc.”: the statement confirms my repeated assertions that the U.S. enmity toward Russia has nothing to do with Communism, but all to do with Russia’s status—old and new—as a great power standing in the way of its imperialist expansions, unilateralism, and hegemonic agendas.
• The Sentence, “Russia still possesses 20,000-plus nuclear weapons,”
• First, did the Senators and Reps expect Russia to disarm just because it changed from Communism to capitalism? In other words, did the legislators of that time expect Russia to disarm unilaterally while they continue keeping their offensive capabilities intact?
• Second, as per Wikipedia, in 2000, the United States had 8,360 nuclear weapons, and Russia had 21,500. The number of weapons is irrelevant in relation to the issue whether the country with the most is a threat to another with a lesser number. On this subject, if Russia was a threat to the U.S., so was the opposite, i.e., the United States was equally a threat to Russia. Besides, countless factors including size, multiple heads, load, trajectory, time of travel, etc. determine the equivalency of destructiveness thus rendering the count of weapon of no use.
• Third, while the gathering was focused on the number of Russian warheads to make impression, someone has “forgotten” that the USSR was defending a huge lands mass in Europe and Asia while confronting American, British, and French nukes near home, and, at the same, deterring potential American surprise attack from continental USA and its nuclear submarines around the oceans.
• Fourth, by mentioning only Russian weapons without disclosing the U.S. number of weapons or other capabilities, the 106th Congress was playing a trite game in highlighting a hypothetical Russian threat while obscuring the American side of the equation.
• The Sentence, “Wide-spread corruption and the absence of honest and accountable internal governmental administrative functions threatens Russia’s slow and erratic evolution toward democracy”. [Sic]

Here we go. Whenever the United States wants to inveigh against a foreign state, it resorts to the inferior gizmo of psychological projection. Russia is everything bad, but the United States is everything good—as if U.S. rulers and society are honest, accountable, inerratic, and unbending practitioners of democratic rules.

To close, the hearing is a testimony that U.S. hostility toward Russia is structural and ideological, fixed and repetitive to tedium. Keeping that in mind, it does not take much convincing to state that Russia is being targeted not because of its Russian-ness. The cause is different and dialectical: Russia is standing in the way of U.S. military-hegemonic onslaught on all nations out of its control. Otherwise, why is all this fanfare and opposition to Russia’s role and place in the international system?

What I just cited is a minuscule story in the annals of U.S. history concerning Russia. However, since 2000 through present, things have not changed in the United States, but gradually changed in the rest of the world. In 2001, George W. Bush, a fascist hyper-imperialist, ushered his freaky world vision with these words: “You Are either with Us, Or with the Terrorists”. In 2024, Blinken, Nuland, and Biden keep shouting, insulting, and blistering but no one listens. What happened? And, how Ukraine became the watershed for the crumbling of U.S. hyper-imperialism?

To recap, starting with Barack Obama, U.S. mechanisms to subjugate Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Arab nations, and any other nation resisting surrender to the U.S. diktat have finally reached their operational limits and started jamming. Signs of irreparable structural failure in the U.S. grip of the world were everywhere. Examples include Trump’s failure to disarm North Korea, Biden and Trump’s failure to vanquish Iran, their failure to make China and Russia “cry uncle” with sanctions and threats, their failure to save the dollar from unstoppable decline in world trade, and the failure of their Zionist wars in the Middle East—directly or via Israel.

In historical perspective, what were the signs that Russia was unstoppably breaking free from the chains that tied it to the U.S. imperialist wheel since the fall of the Soviet Union? How did Ukraine become the unintended theater for changes that no one has ever anticipated? Although Russia had almost surrendered to the United States during the Yeltsin years and the early Putin years (the proposal that Russia joins NATO), the powerful sign that it was so protective of its sovereignty can be attested to by one salient fact. It refused to dismantle its entire nuclear arsenal and national defensive structures—as demanded by the United States immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

After the fall of the USSR (1991), U.S. planners focused on disarming Russia. The first target was the dismantlement of its nuclear capabilities. When that failed, the focus shifted to transform it into a vassal. The method was all too familiar American scheming: use pro-American Russians—with Americans in advisory roles—to model Russia’ new character according to America’s plans. The gamut was long; it included the composition of new political elites, capitalistic mode of production, finance, pro-U.S. foreign policy, and control of Russia’ military assets. But when this enterprise stalled under Vladimir Putin’s first presidency, and when Russia began recovering its independent international role, the U.S. reverted to its erstwhile confrontational strategy: opposing Russia as a state, nation, polity, and geography.

In summary, U.S. conduct vs. Russia is not happenstance. It has roots, motives, and it moves according to preset objectives. Knowing the details of this conduct is the path to unravel the knots surrounding the ongoing events in Ukraine. In particular, U.S. hostile posture toward post-Soviet Russia did not come out of nowhere. It is a culmination of a long anti-Russian history. As I stated, while this posture is no longer about the struggle between capitalism and communism, the United States updated its purpose to include confrontational policies in the pursuit of chimerical global empire under its unilateral control.

On one side, this new struggle is related intricately and ideologically to the imperialist making of the United States and its global projection. On the other, it is materially tied to how it wants to portray and treat Russia. To recap, after the dissolution of the USSR, Russia continued to be a nuclear superpower, it declined to be a U.S. vassal, and it recovered from the disastrous years of Boris Yeltsin. The rest is a known history. After carving its own independent path in the world, Russia is now facing, technically alone, formidable challenges including:

• Fend off attacks from U.S.-directed Ukraine,
• Prepare for a possible U.S. nuclear strike,
• Nullify U.S. efforts to surround it with nuclear weapons,
• Nullify U.S. military advantage through NATO,
• Watching out for aggressive moves by Britain, France, Germany, and Poland,
• Nullify the effects of economic sanctions and seizing of assets ,
• Terminate U.S. unipolarism in world affairs.

A question: what does it mean when an independent Russia (and China) stands in the way of U.S. quest for unopposed control of the planet? The answer is spontaneous: conflict will ensue. Thus far, it seems that neither Russia nor China is inclined to bargain for co-sharing in world domination under the wings of the American empire—they never sought such an aim in the first place. Besides, it would be a frivolous bribery. In addition, Russia and China–through words and deeds–respect the world and the inherent rights of all nations to be secure and prosper without U.S. sermons, warnings, or threats of war.

Russia’s independence from U.S. blackmail has predictable consequences, though. By failing to subdue Russia, the United States went back to square one. That is, driven by dreams of universal control, by entrenched imperialist violence, and by the arrogance of military power, the United States reprised its strategic fixation to defeat Russia. Some armchair ideologues have even suggested that the United States has the capability of taking on both Russia and China at the same time. And another just stated the other day, “The United States must prepare for possible simultaneous wars with Russia and China by expanding its conventional forces.”

Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has mobilized vast arrays of tools to zoom on and destabilize Russia. Anti-Russian films, TV shows, videogames, parodies with heavy Russian-accented English, books, news agencies, mass media, essays, policy statements, academia, congressional resolutions, national security strategies, presidential executive orders, military alliances, and even comic publications have all transformed Russia into a villain for all times.

As a reminder, the core of the Soviet Union was Russia. But when the USSR collapsed, Russia didn’t. Its national purpose and statehood identity remained intact. Having failed to destabilize, contain, or make Russia collapse in over 105 years (since 1917) of strenuous attempts, the United States is at it again by using the Ukraine conflict as a springboard toward that end.

To summarize, weakening, cancelling Russia’s presence in the world, planning to partition, or even destroying it in some way remains an irrepressible U.S. coveted desire. Key point: U.S. morbid hostility toward Russia did not come about the day after the intervention—it predates it by decades. Next, I shall address four pertinent examples.

Example 1: in her article: “From 1945-49 the US and UK planned to bomb Russia into the Stone Age,” Ekaterina Blinova, a freelance Russian journalist, vigorously addressed the issue of U.S.-British hostility toward Russia. She writes:

Interestingly enough, then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had ordered the British Armed Forces’ Joint Planning Staff to develop a strategy targeting the USSR months before the end of the Second World War. The first edition of the plan was prepared on May 22, 1945. In accordance with the plan, the invasion of Russia-held Europe by the Allied forces was scheduled on July 1, 1945. The plan, dubbed Operation Unthinkable, stated that its primary goal was “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though ‘the will’ of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment. [Emphasis added]

Example 2: U.S. Department of State (Office of the Historian) published a document entitled, United States Relations with Russia: The Cold War: 1945–1949. The relevant part of the document was a reference to a telegram sent by the anti-Soviet, anti-Russian, and anti-communist George Kennan. Here is an extract of how Kennan initiated what has become official U.S. hostility to Russia:

On February 22, 1946, George F. Kennan, the chargé d’affaires at the Moscow Embassy, sent a long telegram to the Department of State detailing his concerns about Soviet expansionism. Kennan argued that the United States would never be able to cooperate successfully with the Soviets, because they saw the West as an enemy and would engage in a protracted battle to limit Western power and increase Soviet domination. Kennan argued that the United States should lead the West in “containing” the Soviets by exerting counterforce at various geographical and political points of conflict. Kennan published a public version of this argument in the July 1947 issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Kennan’s articulations of the policy of containment had a major influence on American foreign policy toward the Soviet Union”.

Comment

• Kennan talks about Soviet expansionism. This is remarkable—sarcastically, of course. Was he aware of how the United States of the 13 colonies situated on the East coast of the Atlantic Ocean had expanded all the way to the Pacific and to Hawaii? Did anyone inform him how President James Polk annexed Texas and the way with which he took control of the Mexican Cession?
• He said that the “United States would never cooperate with the Soviets, because they saw the West as enemy”. Fact: it was the other way around. The United States saw Russia, the USSR, and Communism as enemies after the triumph of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. That revolution was a great revolutionary experiment in social change and re-distribution of wealth—all of which are anathema to U.S. capitalists and imperialists. That the experiment had failed is another story.
• The core of Kennan’s hostility toward Russia was inserted along these lines: Russia “Would engage in a protracted battle to limit Western power and increase Soviet domination.” Well! So, it is okay if the United States increases domination and limit the power of the Soviet Union. Essentially, Kennan wanted that the United States to be the sole power having the right to dominate.
• As for the proposal to “contain” Russia, his exhortation has become eventually the daily Gospel in Washington until the end of so-called Cold War. However, “Containment” is now re-appearing regularly in U.S. and European media.

The full text of telegram (861.00/2 – 2246) is a synthesis of how U.S. political psychopaths think of Russia. How they see history. How they see the world through the narrow pinhole of ideology and indoctrination. How they construct a self-serving alternative reality and thereafter manufacture responses to it. (The study of this telegram goes beyond the scope of this work)

In example 3 and 4, next, I shall discuss the making, workings, and adoption of the U.S. anti-Russian ideology.

Read Part 1,  2, 3, 4, and 5.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

B.J. Sabri is an independent political analyst with focus on the politics, mentalities, ideologies, and praxes of imperialism, neocolonialism, fascism, and Zionism. He can be reached at b.j.sabri@aol.com Read other articles by B.J..

"Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 5)" by BJ Sabri

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.

Source: Dissident Voice

Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 5)

by B.J. Sabri / February 29th, 2024

If a direct war would erupt between the United States and Russia, it is not going to be conventional and would surely involve NATO via article 5, and maybe China, Japan, Australia, North Korea, South Korea, Iran, and Israel. Arguments attributing to Russia the responsibility for the evolving mess because it intervened in Ukraine do not hold up. Background, facts, and conflict timeline irrefutably point to the United States. If war comes, it is going to be another American war—no more and no less.

On the specific issue of the U.S. domination of NATO and its war decisions, consider the following arguments. Currently, NATO has 31 members including the United States. If we remove the United States from the count, could NATO’s remaining 30 members opt for war with Russia to resolve the Ukrainian Question? The answer is no.

First, it is assumed that a war involving any NATO member would automatically trigger Article 5 above. Most importantly, even if NATO-minus-USA has the means to wage war, it cannot do that—technically, as much as politically. NATO’s inability to act independently from the United States is not due to lack of military capabilities or willpower (e.g., Britain and France are nuclear powers with hardened animosity toward Russia). The reason, therefore, lies elsewhere—the United States holds all political, military, and financial cards, as well as decision- making processes.

Alternatively, could the United States go to war without the backing of NATO-minus-USA? Yes, it can. But the premise is false. First, the United States will not take high risks without minor actors doing the legwork. Second, it needs other participants for cover-up and sharing of consequences. This explains why the United States chained up NATO members to the Collective Defense Obligation tool.

Now, because Russia has not attacked the United States, and because Ukraine is not a NATO state, could an alliance member refuse joining U.S. war projects? Technically, the answer should be yes because Article 5 does not apply to the situation. In reality though, the United States, experienced at creating pretexts and rationales, could invent favorable conditions to ease involvement by reluctant states, or simply enforce Article 5 without appeal.

For the record, discussing statute and obligations by NATO members is Byzantine. Based on NATO’s history, the treaty was written with one thing in mind: upholding the interests and views of the largest powers–especially the United States. What matters at the end are two interchangeable facts: (1) the U.S. has the power to impose its will on NATO, and (2) NATO is subservient to the United States. Proving this assertion is the U.S.-NATO’s bombing of Serbia, Libya, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq—especially knowing that none of these countries had attacked the United States or any other NATO member. Did these facts stop the U.S. and NATO from invoking Article 5 as an alibi for all subsequent U.S. imperialist wars?

Is the assertion that NATO is an appendage to and a foot soldier for U.S. global agendas and military objectives verifiable? Yes. The United States is the boss of the group—politically, diplomatically, and militarily.

With over 22%  (as per the British-imperialist BBC) and 70% (as per the hyper-imperialist SCIS of Anthony Cordesman) of  the organization’s costs paid for by the United States, and with about 85,000 U.S. troops stationed on European soil, the United States is, de facto, the occupying power of Europe and decision maker inside NATO. (Also read, “Number of active-duty United States military personnel in Europe in 2022, by country”. For the record, Cordesman’s talk about percentages and billions spent is meant to confound the issues of the U.S. super role within NATO. He justified it under the rubric that the United States must spend all that money to keep its status as a superpower)

Confirming the assertion that NATO is a U.S. tool to control Europe is uncomplicated. A 42-word passage in the Department of Defense’s Military Construction Program (fiscal year 2023) provides an authoritative clue. Under the heading: United States (U.S.) Interests in NATO, the authors of the program put it this way:

The United States has an abiding national security interest in a stable, integrated European region. The political and military presence of the U.S. and of NATO fosters the conditions necessary to ensure that democratic and market-based institutions can flourish across the region.

Reading between the Lines

• The sentence, “Abiding national security interest” is a self-centered claim that the U.S. looks at Europe as a useful accessory to ensure its own “security” schemes—abiding is the keyword. Accordingly, NATO is a U.S. pawn.
• The sentence, “In a stable, integrated European region” is code for the U.S. implying that Europe is no more than an unstable area thus NATO is going to be the means by which the United States would put it under its control and command. Besides, recalling the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Balkan wars, hegemonic U.S.A. is the direct cause for Europe’s instability. Meaning, U.S. rulers create conditions of instability, and thereafter use them as a pretext for expanded management and control.
• The sentence, “Necessary to ensure that democratic and market-based institutions can flourish across the region”, is a code for implementing subaltern economic systems to ensure their lasting submission to the U.S. financial interests and control. As for the diction “democratic based-institution”, this is rubish. Europe has been always a theater for great social changes and differing forms of government. For the record, U.S. ruling circles have gutted the word “democracy” from any intelligent meaning while keeping the veneer—voting—visible.

Special Comment on NATO’s NSIP (NATO Security Investment Programme): the statement that “NSIP programming and authorization decisions are based on consensus decision-making among the 30 Allied nations” is a brazen lie. Does anyone really think that Albania, Montenegro, or Romania have the audacity to dissent from whatever the U.S. wants?
Pay attention to how the U.S. is using the so-called defensive alliance to further its imperialistic objectives. Article (a) of “The most essential NSIP CPP [Cultural Property Protection] Categories” spells out U.S. basic plans with the following deceptive wording:

“Alliance Operations and Missions: Infrastructure to support ongoing military operations and missions, including Iraq and Kosovo.”

REMARK: after 25 years of the United States and vassals occupying Kosovo, and after 21 years of continuing occupation of Iraq with NATO’s participation under the guise of “coalition of the willing”, the United States is imposing or involving NATO states to continue with the occupation of both regions. By itself, this shows NATO’s collective will to impose U.S. imperialist order on the world. As a curiosity, what missions are these? Who ordered them and under which rulings and authority? What is their scope? Do they have expiration date?

Through the U.S. conceived structure of NATO, the United States not only declared its military occupation of Europe as a vital matter for its “national security”, but also established its paramount leading role within the organization. A Wall Street Journal article (“The U.S. Controls NATO”) confirms my arguments and conclusion on NATO right from the opening paragraph:

“Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been primarily concerned with serving American political and military interests. That has been its problem. It has been the Greek gift that just keeps on giving, enabling America to maintain bases and a large contingent of military manpower in Europe.”

When They Talk about War with Russia

For decades, a war with Russia has been a fixture on the minds of U.S. ruling circles. Still, thinking of war is something, preparing for it is something else. In the latter case, it is a tangible process whereby rationales and program act as one entity. In concrete terms, it means building all required political, cultural, and military structures, and then coalesce them by ideology to implement that goal. Oddly, the dismantlement of the USSR did not end U.S. preparation process—it only accelerated it. Explanation: U.S. fanaticized project to subjugate Russia and rule it by proxy remained unchanged.

Now, given that a direct military confrontation is possible, it is extraordinary that something so important is consistently missing from the conversations about war. I am alluding to the loss of life on both sides. With regard to potential civilian loss, have a look at the following figures from WWII and compare it to what might happen today—while keeping in mind that advancement in modern military technology make any comparison with the old data incongruous.

For instance, the United States—protected by two oceans—had lost only six civilians due to a Japanese balloon attack. During the same war, the Soviet Union lost 19 million civilians, Italy: over 150,000 civilians, Japan: 337,000 civilian by firebombing plus 165,000 by Truman’s nuclear holocaust, Germany: 410,000 civilians were killed by British and American bombing. (For further reading: Casualties of World War II)

Discussion: when countless Americans clamor for war with any country that opposes the dictatorial unipolarism of the Zionist “exceptional nation”, the scenario of what would happen if equally powerful opponents hit back is rarely mentioned in the daily conversations. Regardless, where is the logic that the mostly uninformed American society is blasé to the consequences of war with Russia?

On top of all that, we have to deal with warmongering morons dispensing sermons on how to confront Russia and win. Is that hot air or pathetic figures of speech? Further, because elliptical thinking, deceptive speaking patterns, and convoluted semantics are dominant, untangling what we hear and read is a challenge. Recalling that the linguistics of imperialism is not something to be taken too lightly— it hides ideology, political determinism, and plan for action—, can we, for once, decode what western politicians are saying when they talk about Russia?

The Cloaked Languages of War

Asserting that Western politicians are practitioners of doublespeak, circular thinking, and elliptical verbiage is easy to demonstrate. Consider the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. On June 30, 2023, he stated, “We are not a party to what is happening in Russia, our goal is not a regime change in Russia. Instead, Berlin seeks to continue to help Ukraine in its fight against Moscow”.

Scholz introduces his goal for a protracted war with Russia via Ukraine with a lie. He stated that Germany is “Not a party to what is happening in Russia”. He was referring to the Wagner Group’s rebellion episode, which, of course, is an internal Russian affair. Face value, this appears to be correct—we have no knowledge of occurred collusion between the group and external forces fighting Russia by proxy. However, the fact that Germany has been attacking Russia tenaciously through Ukraine for the past two years makes Germany a party to the conflict.

This is how the reasoning goes. Dialectically, within the context of war between Russia and Ukraine, any event that could alter the course of war in either country is necessarily going to affect the sponsors of Ukraine including Germany. Meaning, radical changes in the internal affairs of Russia or Ukraine would have direct consequences not only on both countries, but also on the sponsors of Ukraine. To back up the assertion that Germany is a real party to what might happen in Russia can be argued along the following lines.

When Germany applies across-the-board sanctions on Russia, when it declares it wants to freeze or takeover Russian assets in Germany, and when it declares that it wants Ukraine to win (defeat Russia), then the manifest purpose is evident. With their military supplies, training, political support, logistic, and financial contribution to the war against Russia, German politicians are counting on the theory that all such combined measures would provoke widespread domestic troubles inside Russia thus possibly leading to social and military unrest culminating in a revolt against the legitimate government of Vladimir Putin. By all tools of analysis, Scholz was indeed plotting for a regime change in Russia.

(For the record, the United States has been applying this strategy to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran with the hope that coercion, sanctions, blockades, and selective military measures could induce national unrest in the targeted countries thus leading to “regime change”.)

Second, who are “we” in the statement: Germany, the U.S., or collective NATO? Here is a clue: if the U.S. were to change course in Ukraine, Germany would, for sure, fold its bellicose tail and gag its mouth. Third, with billions of dollars in aid and advanced weapons to Ukraine, Germany is certainly a big party to the conflict. Fourth, with his allusion to regime change, Scholz insinuated that if Germany (the West] wants, it has the means to destabilize Russia. If so, he is deluding himself. Excluding the circumstances when Gorbachev and Yeltsin caved in to the United States, Russia’s traditional political structures are not prone to coups.

Now, since neither Germany nor U.S.-led NATO has the ability to overthrow the president of a superpower [Russia] unless by a total direct war that ends with the defeat of Russia, why did Scholz bother to insinuate he could? Overall, what did Scholz say exactly?

Aside from rhetorical boasting to hide failure, Scholz’ oblique meaning is transparent: Germany and NATO have the means and are capable to keep the fight in Ukraine going—and could even extend it to Russia proper, which they did. Is that what he meant with the phrase, “To help Ukraine in its fight against Moscow”? Deduction: Scholz, following in the footsteps of the U.S., is treating Russia’s military action in Donbass as aggression and trespass—that is why “he wants to punish it”. If so, are we to assume that he is upholding some sort of lofty Teutonic principles against interventions and aggressions?

Let us now consider another German politician, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission. In a conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Von Der Leyen told Zelensky, “But what we can tell you is that you’ll have your European friends by your side as long as it takes”. She said that in February 2022 right after the intervention. Now, because what has started as a limited Russian operation has transformed into a protracted proxy war, the implication is apparent: Germany, U.S., and all other leaders of the European Union are taken over by the delusion that they can defeat Russia. (To inspect Von Der Leyen’s imperialist mindset on Russia, read the statement she made on behalf of the Commission in February 27, 2022.)

As with Scholz, was Von Der Leyen trying to uphold “lofty” German principles? The wider question: has Germany ever applied those principles in other arenas? First, Germany was a party—in active support positions—to U.S.-led interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere. Second, I never heard or read that post-WWII Germany supplied any sort of military aid to the Palestinians so they could fight the genocidal settler state of Israel that has been occupying their ancestral lands officially since 1948? What is reason for which Scholz and Von Der Leyen are so determined to help the Ukrainians but not the Palestinians?

Conclusion: “noble” principles are not the motive for Scholz and Der Leyen’s declared enmity toward Russia. Fact: Germany is not a free country as it wishes to depict itself. Germany has lost its independent status since it lost WWII. With never-ending U.S. soft occupation (over 35,000 U.S. military personnel) even after its re-unification, Germany is technically a militarily occupied country.

Further, Germany’s political and military servitude to the United States is not only about a great power that succumbed to the U.S. order, but also about the United States castrating it for good. Now, if mighty Germany has been reduced to a vassal status, then it would be easy to explain why weak NATO countries (including self-important France and Britain) have become vassals— and supporters for U.S. war against Russia.

Based on how things work amidst U.S. system of center and periphery, there can be only one answer. Decisions taken by a single big power belonging to a club whose members share similar ideologies are more than what they appear. On the surface, those decisions give the idea to have been taken independently. In reality, they are (a) transnational by fact of membership and charters, and (b) they are always directed by the higher power that set the club’s policies.

From ideology to practice, and from language of war to possible America-Russia war, how the U.S. enmity to Russia is debated, institutionalized, and adopted?

• Read Part 1,  2, 3, and 4.

Next: Part 6

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

B.J. Sabri is an independent political analyst with focus on the politics, mentalities, ideologies, and praxes of imperialism, neocolonialism, fascism, and Zionism. He can be reached at b.j.sabri@aol.com Read other articles by B.J..

"Imperialism and anti-imperialism collide in Ukraine (Part 1 of 16)" by B.J. Sabri

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.

Source: Dissident Voice

Imperialism and anti-imperialism collide in Ukraine (Part 1 of 16)

by B.J. Sabri / January 10th, 2024

Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.

— Congressman Dan Crenshaw

Premise

Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell introduce their book, Hiroshima in America, with this imposing statement, “You cannot understand the twentieth century without Hiroshima.” Equally, we cannot understand the twenty-first century without knowing why Russia intervened in Ukraine.

Introduction

U.S. proxy war with Russia by way of Ukraine is intensifying and maybe reaching a critical mass for direct war. Despite its military intervention, Russia was not seeking confrontation with the United States—no casus belli. Nor was Russia the one who started the slide towards near-direct hostilities—the United States did. To stress a cardinal point from the onset, the conflict in Ukraine cannot be discussed cogently without addressing the two factors that propelled it: U.S. imperialist and hegemonic agendas.

Prime Minister Victor Orban of Hungary, a NATO country, clearly understood the situation. He explicitly pinpointed to the U.S. feverish drive for a military faceoff with Russia. He said, “The United States has not given up its plan to squeeze everyone, including Hungary, into a war alliance, to go with the crowd”. Orban’s “war alliance” remark is the key to decode U.S. intentions.

While engaging in extremist anti-Russian policies and despite all fanfare, the United States is surely worried to engage Russia in a direct war. Inducing others to sanction, isolate, or fight a proxy war before moving to the next phase is a convenient U.S. strategy to intensify anti‑Russian punitive measures. Depleting Russia’s conventional military resources, test its weapon systems, and uncover its strategic assets are just a few examples of such measures.

So far, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and other Western vassals, have been pouring billions of dollars and advanced weapons in support of the fascist Ukrainian regime. What the United States appears to be hoping for is a direct WWII-style war pitting various European national armies against Russia. In such scenario, the United States would be the overseeing godfather of war but without directly involving its own military.

Even so, with stakes so high and dangers so explosive, an expanded U.S. war against Russia via some European states does not come without potential perils to the hyperpower. Now, by taking into account the steady flow of weapons to Ukraine, never-ending sanctions on Russia, and the decision to avoid nuclear confrontation, the United States seems betting on long ball tactics to weaken Russia through protracted pan-European war of attrition.

On the subject of U.S. role in Ukraine, Donald Trump externalized the inner thinking of the ruling establishment when he stated that Ukraine is “A European problem”. Trump’s assessment is not as simple as it sounds. Was he proposing that the United States should stay away from what he called European problems because Ukraine is geographically European and, therefore, Europe should be in charge of resolving the conflict? How does Russia fit in this scheme anyway since it is partially located in Europe?

If this is a “Trumpian continental doctrine”, then one may ask, why is the United States not leaving the Taiwan issue, for example, to be resolved by Asia— or, congruently, by China and Taiwan without interference by outsiders? Because the issue that Trump raised is not about “continental responsibility”, then what hides behind his remark—especially knowing that with its 750 military bases in at least 80 countries, geography was never a barrier to its interventionist actions anywhere in the world?

Trump is an open book. He obliquely put forward the insidious idea that NATO governments should be the ones fighting Russia on behalf of the United States. Trump, a hyper-supremacist demagogue, and a know-it-all charlatan glossed over a fundamental fact of modern wars: geographic location of an armed conflict is utterly unimportant. Proving this point, U.S. imperialist wars against Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Libya are just a few known examples whereby geography posed no appreciable logistical hindrance.

Contrary to U.S. and European propaganda, the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine is neither a European nor an American problem. By strict logic and on technical ground, it cannot be but a bidirectional affair tying two adversaries (Russia and Ukraine) in a violent struggle to untie tangled geodemographic and territorial issues, as well as legitimate Russian security concerns relating to NATO’s planned expansion to Russia’s borders.

Logic and technicalities could surely elucidate many things. But they cannot dialectically explain why Russia moved into Ukraine in that particular point in history. Regardless of timing, Russia’s intervention was not sudden, was not an invasion, and was not aggression. Rational thinking and pertinent analysis of the events leading to the conflict cannot support counter-arguments to the opposite. As such, the conflict cannot be reduced artificially to geodemography and inter-state contentions. Something else exceedingly larger than Donbass and Ukraine must have been smoldering under the ashes—what is it?

The day after Russia crossed into Ukraine was a scene without equal. The United States, or by antonomasia, the top aggressor, warmongering, and interventionist power in history, mobilized its massive propaganda outlets to inveigh against Russia—dubbed as invader, criminal, and aggressor. Within just a few hours, manufactured pandemonium followed. Russia was put inside the bull’s-eye and targeted for cancellation.

American planners took two bellicose steps to antagonize Russia and worsen confrontation. First: they embraced the Zelensky’s regime (successor to the stridently anti-Russian regime of Petro Poroshenko) in spite of its fascist stance toward Russians and Russia. U.S. propagandists called that embracement “solidarity” with Ukraine and love for its “democracy”. Second: they circulated the illusion that Ukraine, with the U.S. and NATO’s help, could defeat Russia.

I discussed the first step below. As for the second step, because the United States well knew that Ukraine is incapable of defeating Russia, why keep selling the illusion that it could? The grandstanding plan behind the U.S. ruse is perceptible: to keep the war going by putting U.S. and NATO’s military resources at the side of Ukraine, not much as a fighting force, but as a supplier of money, weapons, and training. Considering Russia’s formidable military history, it is unlikely that heavy Western involvement has any chance of turning the tables on the predictable outcome of war.

That did not stop U.S. war planners from adjusting aims and tactics. In no time, the Afghan model was ready for re-use: a proxy war while inundating Ukraine with empty slogans of pending victory. But that model has no chance of succeeding in Ukraine. There is a fundamental difference between the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and that of Russia in Ukraine. Leonid Brezhnev intervened in Afghanistan to support its communist government, not to alter its borders or resolve ethnical and territorial disputes. The distinction is important. It meant that Russia could have left Afghanistan at will if circumstances were to change—this is what Gorbachev did in 1989. He withdrew all Soviet forces. Conversely, Vladimir Putin intervened in Ukraine for reasons that go way beyond Donbass or the future of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.

As for the first step; i.e., the American embracement of the Ukrainian regime, by history and by imperialistic tradition, the United States has never been in the business of solidarity. Solidarity in the American lexicon of imperialism is a meaningless term—except when the U.S. is executing a plan but is pretending otherwise. What matters to the U.S. is the consolidation of geopolitical and strategic gains—even if their action could result in the destruction of the country they purport to help. Observation: U.S. interventions in WWI and WWII do not fit the solidarity model. They were no more than an opportunity to implement hegemonic agendas in Europe and the world. Confirming this is the fact that in both wars, the United States had joined just toward the end of hostilities.

Are U.S. aggressive actions against Russia due to concerns for Ukraine’s territorial integrity or love for Ukrainians? Knowing the voluminous record of U.S. military interventions and rationalizations thereof, the answer is no. As it stands, Russia’s intervention offered the United States the opportunity to confront it for purposes unrelated to the Ukrainian events.

Further, the U.S. claim of solidarity with Ukraine because of Russian “aggression” is dishonest at best. Solidarity cannot be selective. For a claim to be valid, the claimant [United States] must prove that its opposition to aggressions is: (a) rooted in its history, conduct, and ethics; and (b) based on principles thus applied universally. With regard to those elementary requirements, the United States would not only be unable to satisfy but also would fail to prove the contrary.

U.S. propaganda is a gargantuan super-machine that U.S. doctrinaires of empire shape it according to needs.  It does not matter if one points to its duplicity, multiple standards, false claims, misinformation, accusations, mirror politics, hypocrisy, projection, and so on. Take. for example, the U.S. propagandistic usage of the aggression concept. The ideologues of U.S. hegemony routinely dub their interventions as “legitimate”, in defense of things such as “values”, “freedom”, “human rights”, fend off “dangers to the security of the hyper-imperialist state”, and all similar memorized recitations. The flip of the coin is predicable: they call interventions by others “aggressions”, “breach of international law”, and so on. All such fancy rigmaroles are manipulative tactics to subvert facts thus creating favorable conditions for intervention.

To refute U.S. claims that it is helping Ukraine resisting “aggression”, consider the example of Palestine. Briefly, no example could ever top how the United States is treating Israeli aggressions against all Arab states—the latest of which is the genocidal assault on Gaza. Known Facts: Israel, an illegal settler state created by Britain and United States on Palestinian lands, has been attacking—with impunity—many Arab countries for decades. Yet, the “virtuous and peace-loving” Zionist-controlled United States and the hypocrite West always reacted with criminal indifference.

It is public knowledge that U.S. imperialists not only condone Israel’s aggressions under the rubric that Israel has “the right to defend itself”, but also brag about their infatuation with the Nazi “Zionist miracle”. (The ongoing Palestinian genocide at the hands of Israel and the United States consequent to the Palestinian resistance movement of Hamas attacking Israel on October 7, 2023 goes beyond the scope of this work.).

Other examples are significant. India and Pakistan have been having countless skirmishes and wars since 1947. One such war was India’s campaign to partition Pakistan. In 1971, India severed East Pakistan from West Pakistan to create Bangladesh. The “virtuous and peace-loving” U.S. and the West reacted by siding with India. In 1982, Margaret Thatcher sent her navy 8000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean to attack Argentina after this country tried to recover its Malvinas Islands (occupied by colonialist Britain during the 18th c.). The “virtuous and peace-loving” West remained indifferent. In that occasion, and while the United States publicly feigned neutrality, Ronald Reagan said,” Give Maggie enough to carry on…”, and Alexander Haig added, “We are not impartial.”

Is the argument that the United States is determined to confront Russia for purposes unrelated to its intervention in Ukraine sustainable? Considering the antagonistic history of the U.S.-Russian relations, the answer confirms the premise. On the other hand, it is axiomatic that whether Donbass remains in Ukraine or goes to Russia is of no critical value to the physical survival of the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc. Now, suppose that Russia would keep Donbass (historically a Russian territory despite its Ukrainian relative majority).

Would that indicate in any way that Russia is seeking to expand its territory at the expense of other Soviet nations by force? My answer is no. Ponder on the following: before February 24, 2022 (the day Russian forces crossed over Ukraine’s international borders) Russia had never threatened any European country. Preponderant meaning: Russia’s problems are confined to U.S.-controlled Ukraine. The implication is self-explanatory:  when the U.S., NATO, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are behaving as if Russia was poised to invade other countries, we inescapably conclude that propaganda is preparing the ground for premeditated goals and mechanisms of execution.

Could anyone tell us why U.S. warmongers are frothing like rabid dogs to fight Russia? Could we explain why Poland and Ukraine’s anti-Russian rhetoric goes beyond toxic hatred and far beyond all definitions given to Nazism? Equally, we want to know why the U.S. is pushing Japan to hone its horns against Russia. We also want to know why Joe Biden, speaking from Hiroshima, is promising to extend U.S. “nuclear umbrella” to Japan as if Russia is about to invade it?

Three observations on Biden in Japan: (1) Biden’s disparagement of Japan was painted all over his face—he delivered his remarks from the same city that the United States had incinerated with a nuclear bomb on August 6, 1945. (2) He reminded Japan that the United States was the one who gutted its military power, but now it wants to be in charge of its “defense”. (3) He used the gimmicks of the nuclear umbrella to call on Japan to re-arm. The last observation can be validated by the fact that numerous American politicians are now calling for Indo-Pacific NATO that includes Japan.

On the funny side of things, it is amusing to hear U.S. ambassador to South Africa, Reuben Brigety, saying, “The arming of Russia by South Africa…is fundamentally unacceptable… [and a] deviation from South Africa’s policy of non-alignment”. [Sic]

Could the ambassador enlighten us as how he reached the “sharp” conclusion that arming Russia is “fundamentally unacceptable”? What is the basis for such fundamentality? Specifically, why is the arming of Ukraine acceptable but not the arming of Russia? Also, what is the story with the phrase “deviation from . . .” Are U.S. imperialists keeping logs on “deviations” by foreign governments and ways to correct them?

Further, Brigety seems implying that Russia is a weak country that needs to be armed by others in order to fight. This is disinformation. Despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia is still a military superpower and a top maker and exporter of sophisticated defense systems and offensive hardware at par with that of the United States—if not more.

Understanding U.S. praxis for imperialist control

U.S. strategy for world domination is based on variable expediencies that change according to circumstances. Knowing all that, what is the U.S. expediency to confront Russia in Ukraine? Answer: coerce all potentially coercible countries to punish Russia—even if that could damage their national interests. But coercion thusly applied raises a question. What is the reason behind the United States pushing some countries to maintain neutrality while urging others to align with its anti-Russian campaign? Assumption: the U.S. has run out of options—its blackmail of other nations no longer works.

For example, talking about the U.S. wanting Serbia to impose sanctions on Russia, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic complained, “Whoever comes [to Belgrade feels their] first obligation is to explain to me that I am a jerk who did not introduce sanctions”.  In a similar vein, Foreign Policy Magazine, one among many ubiquitous voices of U.S. imperialism, wonders whether “Too much pressure on African countries to condemn Russia could backfire”. Implication: the United States and allies are not leaving free breathing space for foreign governments to make up their minds independently.

Down in the article, the writers clownishly ask, “Can the West Rally the Rest against Putin?” The psychological problem that afflicts U.S. imperialists is palpable: they invariably put themselves in a different category as in “West and Rest”. Pay attention: while the word “West” denotes geographical belonging, the word “Rest” is indistinct and can be anywhere. Meaning: the Rest is void of identity thus of value except when is being by the United States. With that, a superiority complex is established.

Then they said, “Rally”. Rally how, one may ask? Is that through sanctions, enticement, or threats? Pay attention again: their question does not name Russia as a target for the rallying cry. Instead, it names Putin. On this subject, the United States repeatedly used this ploy (assigning culpability to specific persons) in Nicaragua, Panama, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Serbia, North Korea, China, and elsewhere. Purpose: demonize the top individuals to justify possible attack on their country.

What does it mean when U.S. pressure on other nations does not yield results? Arguably, it is a sign that structural fatigue is fracturing the system that applies it. So, when the United States catapults all sorts of threats and sanctions against any country that deals with Russia—but no one listens except NATO vassals—, the unassailable inference is transparent: Russia’s campaign in Ukraine is finally producing irreparable fracture lines inside the American architecture for world control.

They say history is a teacher. Among the countless things that history teaches, one is telling. At some point in their existence, marauding empires always die during their panting trek for uncontested domination. This explains why U.S. rulers always rely on lies, bribery, calls for “partnerships”, coercion, and threats as a means for obtaining consent. These contraptions cannot be other than venting mechanisms to help coping with the unstoppable weakening of the structural underpinnings of the imperialist enterprise.

Pressure tactics aimed at forcing countries to take anti-Russian stance are so banal that they are worth mentioning. Janet Yellen, Biden’s secretary of the treasury and a vocal proponent of U.S. economic hyper-imperialism, offered a sample. She sent her Nigerian-born deputy (Wally Adeyemo) to Nigeria with the hope that a Nigerian-American might have a better chance at convincing his compatriots to “Pitch African Countries on pressuring Russia”.

Another example is Josep Borrell, EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. Borrell, a stiff-like-a-stone warmongering ideologue, is unquestionably confused. He suggests that the “European Union should ban Indian fuel made from Russian oil”. In other words, he is directly threatening India not to buy Russian oil or else.

Wait a minute. We were told that in capitalism (romantically dubbed free market economy), when A sells B a commodity, then B becomes its lawful owner. Accordingly, B has every right to resell it. This is how B makes a profit: by buying and re-reselling. In effect, what Borrell wants to do is to stop the sacred totem of capitalism from working when the objective is punishing Russia. Whether capitalism works or not is not the problem. The problem is that Western officials spare no method to destabilize and inflict economic pains on countries that do not share their anti-Russian policies.

A formula-like practice that the United States has been applying and re-applying with tenacity is contradictory dualism. Contradictory dualism, as applied to international relations, goes beyond “what I say is not what I do”, and beyond the outdated formula of “double standard”. Briefly, it is a self-given license to sell a product with counterfeit ingredients. Consider the following limited examples:

• It defends Ukraine’s sovereignty, but it repeatedly violated the sovereignty of countless independent nations;
• It condemns “aggressions” by others, while it is the number one aggressor in the world;
• It prints money on cheap paper but wants the world to accept it as a universal currency;
• It condemns so-called invasions, but it has invaded so many countries with total impunity’
• It makes yearly lists of “state sponsor of terrorism”, while it is the top terrorist state in the history of humanity;
• It claims that it was appalled by crimes of Nazi Germany, but it had committed unspeakable mass murders and genocides that exceeded the motives of Nazism. The near extermination of the Original Peoples, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Eisenhower’s concentration camps for German soldiers, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, and Afghanistan are indelible examples.

Is contradictory dualism psychological projection? Hardly. Aside from being a tool for making politically motivated decisions, it is a modus operandi powered by interventionist ideology, culture of war, and by a dangerous multi-angled system with its own peculiar legislations and laws. The model has a function. It defines the U.S. in two ways: 1) it confirms the intent to dominate as in the phrase “leader of the free world”, and (2) it presents its own system as epitome of statecraft and unparalleled progress. Is the U.S. a model for an unparalleled progress?

It is a fact that the United States is an advanced country. But U.S. claim of greatness is a matter open for debate. A country with (a) sadistic proclivity for wars and aggressions, (b) structurally flawed financial-capitalistic and political order, (c) gravitational pull toward collapse ($26.3 trillion of foreign debt on October 6, 2023—and still counting), and (d) countless mega social problems, domestic racism, international supremacism, corruption, and degraded civilian infrastructures could never claim entitlement to exceptionalism.

Alternatively, even if the hyper-empire is credited with excellence in every sector, that does not erase the fact that we are dealing with a criminal, lawless, and genocidal entity. Above all, U.S. advancement in medicine, technology, space research, etc., is never an alibi for violent imperialism and wholesale domination, and it is not a license to rule the world. Lastly, a parasitic superpower that exists for the sake of controlling others, to suck up their resources, and to destroy their societies for the benefit of its ruling establishment, its orbiting special interest corporations and their satellite groups cannot possibly possess the accolades it loves to heap upon itself.

In terms of the U.S. ideological doctrines— pivoting around military interventions, coercions, and world domination—a recent statement, again by Janet Yellen, is useful. After minimizing the prospects of war with China, Yellen talked about one such doctrine when she touched on the status of the Chinese economy. Showing off a standard U.S. foreign policy smugness, she said, “China’s economic growth need not be incompatible with U.S. economic leadership”. Translation: you [China] cannot or have no right to grow your economy—if this clashes with our imperialistic economic interests. Yellen’s statement was not casual. She confirmed that in order for the U.S. to consolidate its domination, it must first dominate the modes of production and assets of designated rival states.

To summarize, if we want to evaluate the role being played by the United States in its quasi-direct war with Russia, we need to see all relevant matters in their proper contexts and dimensions. That being said, a protracted war of attrition against Russia would be a U.S. success. It implies that the United States, using others, has managed to force Russia into a corner. It also implies the de facto conversion of U.S. indirect conflict with Russia from war by proxy through Ukraine to war by proxy through most of Europe.

It can be argued that if things go as planned, an indirect U.S. war with Russia through NATO proxies would act as a self-restraining mechanism. Said differently, the United States would protect itself by not engaging Russia face to face. As I stated earlier, a direct conventional American-Russian war could easily turn into nuclear exchange. Again, the logic of such an exchange leaves no space for doubt—destruction for all. Clue: while the United States could care less if Russia is annihilated to the finite particles, it is certainly unwilling to accept its own annihilation.

Related to the preceding, seizing on the opportunity offered by Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, the United States swiftly dusted off decades-old anti-Russian agendas. And, just like that, in the blink of an eye, U.S. rulers turned Ukraine into a daily show and Russia into an existential threat. Seeing the magnitude of the United States involvement in Ukraine, there is no denying that it is looking for any possible way to degrade Russia’s military capabilities by prolonging the war and ruining its economy through sanctions and restrictions on foreign trade. In short, there can be no objective other than weakening Russia to the point of provoking its collapse.

At this time, a dilemma sets in: Russia won’t collapse and the U.S. won’t give up. Is that stalemate before the conflagration? What comes next? In a tweet on X, retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor gives a straightforward answer. He stated, “We have sent almost all of our war stocks, weapons systems and ammunition to Ukraine. We don’t have a great deal left. The war in Ukraine is lost. Make Peace you fools!” Would his exhortation find recipients?

Now, considering the objectives of all forces involved in Ukraine, the first line of enquiry should focus on making questions and trying to come up with some answers. For example,

How Russia’s move into Donbass has changed the rules of engagement with the hyper-imperialist superpower of the United States? Was that move really about Donbass or about the fate of the Russians living in the region—or something else? Is NATO expansion a real problem for Russia? How did it happen that most of NATO countries are aligned behind the United States knowing that post-Soviet Russia never threatened them? Is Ukraine joining NATO a big deal? Why does the U.S. want to preserve NATO as an organization? Why is France (who never won a war as an empire or as a republic) waving its sword at Russia? Why is the United States instigating India against Russia and China? What is the story with Japan’s revanchism and belligerence vs. Russia? Why is the United States pushing for expanding NATO to the East Pacific? Have Russia’s post-Soviet accommodating policies with the U.S. come back to haunt it? Can Russia explain its many foreign policy blunders—especially in taking the side of U.S. imperialism on critical international issues? Are Israel and American Zionists playing any role in the conflict? Does Israel, via the power of the United States, have any specific interest in Ukraine? Where does China stand on this war? Where do the American people stand on the issue of U.S. imperialism and quest to dominate the world? Does that matter anyway? Is the culture of war and violence programmed so deep inside the collective American psyche that it is hard to eradicate?  Are fascism, militarism, Zionism, ignorance, and MAGA style political illiteracy driving U.S. hyper-imperialist foreign policy and wars? Is it true that the U.S. wants to dominate the world? Is Russia fighting to end U.S. hegemonic control of the planet, or solely interested in preserving its rights as a sovereign nation? Where do antiwar activists stand on the issue of war in Ukraine? Why is Russia kowtowing to the fascist settler state of Israel, while this effectively is supporting U.S. proxy war in Ukraine? Is the conflict in Ukraine about imperialism vs. anti‑imperialism? Is Russia an anti-imperialist state?

Next: Part 2 of 16

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

B.J. Sabri is an independent political analyst with focus on the politics, mentalities, ideologies, and praxes of imperialism, neocolonialism, fascism, and Zionism. He can be reached at b.j.sabri@aol.com Read other articles by B.J..