What really is the problem between Russia, the United States of America and the rest of the West? It would seem that geopolitically they need each other as enemies to keep their respective people quiescent! In Ukraine, the Russians had a pro-Russian President who was removed by a coup to be replaced by a pro-Western President. Russia responded by encouraging a Separatist Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine to secede. The Russians further simply annexed Crimea against all the principles of International Law. Golan Heights in Syria was simply taken over by Israel. India, when it had sufficient power, took over Goa. The U.S. itself had earlier taken over Guantanamo Bay from Cuba. Underlying all these moves is the unwritten international law allowing powerful countries to get away with illegal acquisition.
The Monroe doctrine established by President Monroe in 1832 was the basis and bedrock of U.S. policy in Latin America and the Caribbean; namely, the U.S. would not tolerate any other power to operate in the Americas: that its national interest was to keep all hostile power out of the Americas and the Caribbean, and would justifiably remove all hostile governments in the area. Thus it invaded Chile and stopped the USSR from building a military base in Cuba which may be used to house nuclear weapons pointed at the U.S. Hence the famous face-off between Khrushchev and J.F. Kennedy over Cuban missiles. Moreover, the U.S. constantly changed any President in Latin and Central America who was left-wing in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Granada etc. It even tried to replace Fidel Castro in Cuba but failed.
From 1945 onwards, the basic aim of U.S.’ and West’s Policy was to resist the threat of Communism as practised by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia), Vietnam, China, Korean, etc. and to spread the ideology of democracy and its associated freedoms, including free trade. In 1989 the USSR/Russian threat ended and what was the result? Have the U.S. and the West changed their policy to Russia which now poses no ideological threat to it? No. Instead, in that year, the U.S. invaded Panama immediately; thus for the first time, a major U.S. policy act was not explicable in terms of USSR/Russian threat. The U.S. action was condemned by all of Latin America, the General Assembly in the United Nations and the Security Council (although the resolution of condemnation was vetoed by U.S. while Britain abstained).
New U.S. policy is now to protect its industrial base and “free market economy” and, the containment of radical nationalism: the protection of oil pipelines carrying oil to the West; the keeping of marine shipping free from pirate attacks of the coast of Somalia; Henry Kissinger, one-time U.S. Secretary of State, once described radical nationalism as a “virus” that might spread contagion: especially in reference to Salvador Allende’s Chile where socialist democracy had been triumphant. The Muslim Brotherhood’s success in elections in Egypt; Hamas’ election victory in Gaza; the Socialist party election in Ukraine were all equally unacceptable. The U.S. exhibits the same mindset as in Vietnam where socialist democracy had also won under Ho Chi Min: it was regarded as a virus which might spread to the whole region, including Indonesia which was extremely rich in resources.
U.S. had downed the plane of Iranian Air flight 655, killed 290; commander of U.S. ship, Viennese, the naval ship that shot down the Iranian plane, was given the Legion of Merit award. Israel shot down a Libyan plane, two minutes to landing in Cairo, killing 110.
The Russians themselves killed 217 over Ukraine in Malaysian Air MH17. These are a few examples of low intensity “wars” that have continued since the Russians believed they were fooled into acquiescing to the breakdown of the Berlin Wall and the unification of Germany
When President Reagan began his highly publicised war strategy, that, in order to keep U.S. policy of being able to deliver a first strike nuclear attack capability against the Soviet Union, he was planning for ability to send nuclear weapon up in satellites, so that should the USSR ever threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons, he would strike first through the nuclear armed satellites he was developing against which the USSR could have no credible defence. The USSR feared that they would have no capabilities to withstand the U.S. nuclear assault: the USSR buckled. They spent billions trying to counter the U.S. nuclear threat and in the process nearly bankrupted their nation, thereby weakening their hold over the Warsaw-pact countries.
As the Soviet Union economy started to crumble it became necessary to seek an accommodation. The Berlin wall came down; the Warsaw pact, set up to counter NATO, disintegrated. With that, the USSR lost its hegemonic power over Eastern Europe and its ability to oppose the U.S. in other parts of the world, including Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. As had happened several times before in history, While Russia decided to contract and protect its homeland, NATO gulped up Eastern Europe and even the Russian Peninsula States of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. The West was, at it were, at the gate of Russia.
If President Reagan pulled out such a stunt, it was a spectacular success. The West continued to free Soviet satellite states, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Katzistan, etc. and even attempted to penetrate the heart of Russia by organising a revolt in Georgia, Chechnya etc. where Russia then drew a red line.
But the one thing that is enduring is that the West needs “enemies” in order to remain united and strong. Russia and Mr. Putin fulfill this role. Western propaganda is unleashed against Russia – they kill Syrians, Ukrainians; they dope their athletes, and so on. When Lance Armstrong, Flo Jo, Tyson Gay take drugs, it is not the whole U.S. team that is pilloried; there is no systemic attack that the U.S. government is state sponsoring their sportsmen to take performance-enhancing drugs. But for Russia it is the country that is attacked for sponsoring drug taking athletes: thus, the whole of the Russian athletes are threatened with a country-wide ban from competing in world sports. Russia also needs the West as enemies to contain its people. Russia and China though capitalist do not have a free press and what is known as an open society. But how free is the press in the West when it reports about China and Russia?
The Shiite of Iran, Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are the two fundamentalist divisions of Islam today. Who is trying to bring peace between these two interpretations of Islam? The world seems to have accepted that there is nothing that can be done. These groups would continue in their murderous intent, in continent after continent, in country after country, in Europe, Asia, Africa, Aden, Somalia, Palestine – Gaza, West Bank, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, Spain, Italy, France, Great Britain, the United States, Nigeria, Niger, Chad and the DRC.
If the world had real leaders strong enough to guarantee peace, they would have been able to settle all the “small” wars in Syria, Libya, the Middle East, the rest of Africa, etc. Instead the big powers fight proxy wars in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Georgia, Venezuela, etc. The European Union is threatened with disintegration through resurgent xenophobic nationalism. Europe, in the past 75 years, for the first time in its history, has not fought against each other. With the breakup of Europe there is almost a guarantee of war, fuelled by xenophobia, hatred of Arabs, Indians, etc. Who have tried to make Europe a pluralistic society?
Meanwhile, the big nations are chomping in the mouth to open up new war theatres especially in the South East Seas.
Let us suppose the world had leaders such as Dwight Eisenhower, General George Marshall, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Gandhi, Madiba Mandela, Sukarno today – without the ideological differences which bedeviled these men when they were in power – communism which threatened to overthrow all industrialised nations through a workers’ revolution, or the unrestrained rampaging of ideological capitalism – (which is what we have to-day). China and Russia are no more communist countries. They are pragmatic capitalist countries which are moved by their own interests without any ideology. If this is so, then great world leaders should be able to intervene in the Shia-Sunni split and seek an accommodation for peace and tolerance. The same strong nations would intervene in Iran and Syria, Ukraine and Russia, North and South Korea, Taiwan and China: Israel and its neighbours thrusting towards real world peace.
