See Part I
Back in the 1930s, the Soviet government knew better how to deal with the Nazis. Fashizm – eto voina was a well-known Soviet slogan, fascism means war. Only after six vain years of attempts to organise an anti-Nazi coalition with the West did the Soviet government seek to buy time by signing the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact in August 1939, another example, incidentally, of sinuous Russian diplomacy. Come to think of it, one might even compare the Minsk accords to the non-aggression pact. «Play for time», the strategy seems to be in Moscow: count on a favourable turn of events, hope for a genuine implementation of Minsk leading to the end of fascism in Ukraine, and obtain security and real autonomy for the Donbass. If these scenarios sound like wishful thinking, they are, for the Kiev junta has not respected the Minsk accords for a single day.
In fact, for Kiev and its minders in Washington, Minsk is only a breathing spell to gain strength to destroy the anti-fascist resistance in the Donbass and then to turn against Russia itself. This strategy was obvious from the first day. Has the Russian government forgotten its own history? It is not the first time when foreign powers are seeking to use Ukraine as a weapon against Moscow. Nor should the Russian government ever forget that fascism and war are apocalyptic, conjoined twins.
The United States acts as though it has Putin at a disadvantage. In Kiev Proconsul Pyatt boasts of it. And just to remind Russia of who has the upper hand, Washington is pushing NATO into more and more provocative military activities in Eastern Europe, applauded by Poland and the Baltic states, those historic nesting grounds of fascism and antisemitism during the interwar years. General Mark Milley, the US Army chief of staff, said recently that Russia is an «existential threat» to the United States. Given the Russian Federation’s repeated attempts to become a more integral part of the western and especially European world, US hostility toward Russia seems gratuitous. «Existential threat» should be decoded to mean that the Russian Federation will not submit to US hegemony. Of course everyone else is entitled to ask whether the US quest for world domination – hidden in fairy stories about «democracy» – is worth another World War.
Russia has responded to the NATO menace by announcing the organisation and deployment of three new divisions to its western frontiers. No doubt the US government will declare that this action is «aggression» for it does not recognise the Russian Federation’s rights to defend its national security. During the interwar years, the Soviet government considered the Baltic states and Poland to be potential jumping off points for an invasion of the USSR. Operation Barbarossa saw Nazi armies attack through these places. Is NATO taking up an old strategy, long anticipated in Russian contingency planning?
Fortunately for the United States, NATO is still its whip hand to keep Europe in line. Any European leaders who see the danger of being dragged into a war with Russia by the United States has little chance of stopping the Atlanticists’ compliance with orders from Washington. In France President François Hollande now supports complete «reintegration» into NATO, thus surrendering the last bits of French independence to the United States.
If his predecessor, Charles De Gaulle, could rise from the dead, he would no doubt throttle the pathetic Monsieur Hollande. What began as tragedy now ends as farce.
Not coincidentally, and not to be left out of anti-Russian posturing, the British government has just published a 300 page document purporting to show that the Russian government and President Putin himself «probably» or «possibly… could have» ordered the assassination ten years ago of a Russian turncoat in London, the unfortunate Mr Litvinenko. The report even lends credibility to his accusation that Putin was paedophile during the 1990s and that the FSB (or Putin himself) ordered the assassination because Litvinenko knew too much. It’s a great story for the British yellow press. But it is also a disgusting personal attack on the president of the Russian Federation, demonstrating just how low the British government has descended into the dark sewers of compulsive, atavistic Russophobia. Not coincidently, the governing Tories have proposed more military spending in view of Russian «aggression». The British have thus adopted the US modus operandi of the aggressor targeting a victim for destruction by accusing it of aggression. In other words, Pot calls Kettle black. Not that Great Britain could ever threaten Russia. It is only a barking lapdog of the United States. Remember the British lion? The poor creature had only one tooth left and had to be euthanized.
After the black propaganda attack from London against Putin, another came from Washington via BBC from the US Treasury Department. Putin is guilty of corruption, said a Treasury Department spokesman. Is the Treasury Department thinking of extending extraterritorial rights to the Russian Federation in order to indict Putin for tax evasion? How far is the United States willing to go? Anglo-American gutter attacks against Putin are increasing in intensity. The shrillness of the attacks appears to be in direct proportion to the absence of any evidence to support them. Not to mention the flagrant hypocrisy of accusing Putin of assassinations or corruption when the US President Obama issues kill orders on a regular basis and presides over corruption and profligacy on a scale beyond anything Russians could match. This Anglo-American black propaganda or disinformation constitutes a form of aggression against the Russian Federation and appears to be part of an ongoing campaign of objectification and «villainisation» of President Putin. Restraint has been cast to the four winds. Is the United States preparing for war against Russia?
Careful what you wish for Mr Obama. If you sling mud in a storm, it’s bound to blow back on you.
All of these developments are related to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Whilst attention is focused on Syria, the Ukrainian tinderbox smoulders. Minsk is the only solution, Putin says, but to what end? As long as fascists hold power in Kiev, there will be no peace or stability in Eastern Europe and no security for Russia. That’s just fine with the US government, but what about Moscow?
The French economy minister says anti-Russian sanctions should be lifted by this summer, in so far as the «peace process» is respected. But it is Kiev which does not respect the Minsk accords; Russia is not even a direct party to the conflict. The sanctions of course are intended to force Russia to compel the capitulation of anti-fascist forces in the Donbass, people who Proconsul Pyatt calls «terrorists». Talk about an «ugly American» and Orwellian narratives. Anyway, France can make all the suggestions it wants about lifting sanctions. But Washington calls the tune, and the sad little Europeans, including the French, still dance to it.