5 March 2014, 16:35

Battlefield Eurasia: Ukraine, Syria, and the Asia-Pacific as targets of failing American imperialism

Battlefield Eurasia: Ukraine, Syria, and the Asia-Pacific as targets of failing American imperialism

The US is making historic power moves of aggression in simultaneously waging three multifaceted campaigns. It is targeting Russia, Iran, and China through destabilization in Ukraine, Syria, and the South and East China Seas. The end result is to neutralize the primary powers that are resistant and defiant (R&D) to the "universal" Western political, economic, and social models. On the centennial anniversary of World War I, the world is once more faced with the threat of a "Great War" by miscalculation.

Each targeted theater has specific American actions and objectives: 

Ukraine Actions:

The US funded and managed the violent overthrow of the legitimate government, installing a fascist one in its place that supports anti-minority legislation that discriminates against Russian speakers and dual citizens, as well as allowing violent actions to go unpunished. The Western-supported government has provoked Russia and destabilized the East, South, and Crimea, and by appealing to NATO for assistance against Russia, it presents a strong threat for Moscow. It is also antagonistic towards the Sevastopol naval base. 

Ukraine Objectives:

The US wants to sow chaos on Russia's Western border and divide the fraternal nations of Ukraine and Russia. Speaking about the Russian-led Eurasian Union economic project, Hillary Clinton in December 2012 said that "We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it." Apparently, illegal coups and nationalist violence are the "effective ways" of choice for the US, known for its "democracy" and "humanitarian intervention" history, to "slow down or prevent" economic integration between Russia and Ukraine. 

Installing an anti-Russian government is the easiest method to achieve this. The experience of the anti-Russian Orange Government in Ukraine after the 2004 Color Revolution proves this strategy's worth. The then-government rapidly worked to move Ukraine into NATO, despite the majority of its population being against this dangerous step. It also stole gas from Russian pipelines and refused to pay the new prices, which in turn resulted in the Russian government turning off the supplies. Ukraine essentially held the rest of Europe hostage in 2006 to tarnish Russia's business and political reputation. This in turn scared Europe and pushed it to unsuccessfully look for alternative pipeline routes. 

Control of the Russian pipeline nexus in Western Ukraine is also important because South Stream, Russia's underwater gas pipeline to Europe via the Black Sea and the Balkans, is not yet operational. If an anti-Russian government is once more imposed in Ukraine, it can repeat the 2006 energy crisis. Sustained cuts in energy would harm the Russian national budget and hurt European industry. It would negatively affect the EU just as much as it would Russia.

Another goal is to remove the Russian fleet from Crimea and make the Black Sea a "NATO lake." NATO has been puzzlingly expanding since the end of the Cold War, even though it gave political assurances not to do so in 1990. The end goal is to push NATO as close to Russia’s borders as possible so that the US may apply more pressure and bully the country into following its leadership. America also wants to strategically place its anti-missile defense units, including ships, into positions where they can shoot down Russian missiles and give NATO the tactical advantage of a nuclear first strike. If the US succeeds in this threatening goal, then the stabilizing concept of mutually assured destruction would be a thing of the past, and the US would be free to launch nuclear war whenever it wants without any military consequences.

Syria Actions:

Washington has funded, trained, and materially supported violent insurgents in the country, some of whom now engage in terrorism. The US has provided nearly $1 billion in aid, weapons (including anti-aircraft ones that could be potentially used against civilian airlines), and CIA training to the militant insurgents fighting against the Syrian government. These insurgents sometimes resort to perverse and terrorist tactics such as burning people alive in ovens, eating human hearts, taking civilians hostage and executing them, and suicide bombings, among other despicable crimes. 

This has created the categories of "good" and "bad" terrorists for the West. The "good terrorists" are those fighting against anti-Western governments and advancing American foreign policy, but the "bad terrorists" are those plotting attacks against the US and the West. Syrian President Assad insists that there is no distinction between "good" and "bad" terrorists, and that terrorism is simply terrorism regardless of the motives behind it. However ironic it may be, it seems that for the US, politics trumps principles when it comes to terrorism. 

The US sought to wage war against Syria in September over the chemical weapons attack that the opposition carried out (falsely saying it was the government attacking civilians) but was stopped by Russian diplomatic efforts. 91 percent of Americans at the time were against war in Syria. Regardless, through supporting the militant insurgents, the US and its partners have ruined the country and brought about untold destruction.

    and share via