Military Report of Novorossia (17.08.2015 )

FACT TO REMEMBER:
IF THE WESTERN MEDIA HAD ITS PRIORITIES IN ORDER AND ACTUALLY INFORMED, EDUCATED AND UPLIFTED THE MASSES INSTEAD OF SHILLING FOR A GLOBAL EMPIRE OF ENDLESS WARS, OUTRAGEOUS ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, AND DEEPENING DEVASTATION OF NATURE AND THE ANIMAL WORLD,  HORRORS LIKE THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED MANY YEARS, PERHAPS DECADES AGO.  EVERY SINGLE DAY SOCIAL BACKWARDNESS COLLECTS ITS OWN INNUMERABLE VICTIMS. 

pale blue horiz

[printfriendly]

REBLOGGERS NEEDED. APPLY HERE!

Get back at the lying, criminal mainstream media and its masters by reposting the truth about world events. If you like what you read on The Greanville Post help us extend its circulation by reposting this or any other article on a Facebook page or group page you belong to. Send a mail to Margo Stiles, letting her know what pages or sites you intend to cover.  We MUST rely on each other to get the word out! 


 

And remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 


What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?




PuntoPress_DisplayAd_REV






CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE IN RUSSIA: Three Amigos from Ukraine, And On Sanctions, Putin, Much More

ALEVTINA REA


 russia-MotehrlandCalls.victory.ww2.v.butrim.flickr

Despite all attacks and denigrations, Mother Russia endures…and marches on.

[box type=”info”] Note from Editor:  I am very pleased to present this special edition of Progressive Activists Voice which describes the recent visit of a Russian friend and professional colleague, Alevtina (“Alya”) Rea.  She gives us an excellent snapshot of life in Russia today, something one could never get in the West from corporate media.—Thomas Baldwin[/box]rea-russian-flag-640


“Haven’t you heard, it’s a battle of words …

And who’ll deny it’s what the fighting’s all about?”

Pink Floyd, “Us and Them,” 1973

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s far as other cultures are concerned, basically, we deal with “ultimately unknown reality,” and the lack of either direct involvement or mere curiosity on our part is manna from heaven to our respective governments. It is exactly why a bunch of arrogant and ignorant politicians – at least some of those who serve the ignominious interests of global domination – feel free to manipulate their constituencies without the slightest twinge of conscience. One of my favorite philosophers, Jacques Ellul, said, in his book On Freedom, Love and Power, “We live as if the reality we have come to know and live is reality itself, minus some details yet to be discovered and lived. … In other words, we have extrapolated what we know and live to include, in principle, all of reality, thereby leaving no place for anything that is radically ‘other.’” As in Plato’s parable about the cave, political manipulators are only eager to cast shadows on the back wall of our “caves” to draw our attention away from the immense world outside of our voluntary “imprisonment.” And we are the ones who allow confining ourselves in a Procrustean bed of distorted reality thus “leaving no place for” – or not accepting – “anything that is radically other.”

Given the prevailing Russophobic mood that took hold in the West in the last few years, one may wonder how to really wade through the thick propaganda layers, and the constant lies being mounted on Russia and its leaders. How should one make sense of something that if not entirely “other” is still is not quite “our” way of life? Obviously, the best way to find truth is go to the source, so to speak – to visit this country and talk to people who live there, find out their views and thoughts on what is transpiring nowadays, as far as their lives are concerned. During my trip to Russia this June-July, I was curious to see with my own eyes how the Russians handle the impact of economic sanctions imposed by the West. I was in Moscow in the summer of 2014 and saw how happy and prosperous the Muscovites were back then. But one year later, what has changed under harsh pressure on Russia, in an effort to bend the country politics to the Western politicians’ will?

[dropcap]U[/dropcap]pon my immediate arrival, still at the airport, I had a chance to speak with the head of a young family standing behind me in the customs line. The three of them – a husband, wife, and their son – were coming back after living in the United States for four months. The young man was a computer tech who had a chance to work at Microsoft in Seattle. He was quite excited to go back home. They definitely seemed to miss Russia. I was curious to hear his opinion about the effect of the sanctions and what he thinks about the current U.S.-Russian confrontation. The guy was very clear – he himself and all his friends support Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. Obviously, they noticed the economic effect of the Western bullying – the prices on some food items soared – but all in all everyone copes. Most of what the sanctions caused, he said, is to unite the Russians – they understand the unfairness of it all and, for the most part, they are disappointed in the West’s stand, especially in the U.S. It is quite obvious to all who is the mastermind of a current hostility. “Americans, as a people, they are ok,” he said. “But we don’t like the Obama administration!”

russianBabe-sailor

Incidentally, my arrival in Moscow on June 12th had happened on a big Russian holiday – the Russia Day. The celebration on the Red Square, the fireworks, the throngs of happy people everywhere – I guess, it was all predictable and expected, to some degree, but still very pleasant to see. One year later, despite the sanctions, the economic hardship that followed, and in spite of the Obama administration dedicated efforts to cause some harm to Russia, its people are still happy and they know how to enjoy life!

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n the next few weeks, the conversations with people of various ages in Moscow and elsewhere demonstrated that they had more or less accepting attitudes toward the sanctions while feeling a kind of indignation toward the West, mostly [and quite deservedly] the United States. Yes, the prices were soaring and they noticed that their money was much easier to spend these days, but, at the same time, they do ok. For the most part, they all support Russia, condemn American “exceptionalism” and hypocrisy so brazenly put on display by the U.S president – while all sorts of gangsterism is being committed by his country around the globe – and they support Vladimir Putin. It was way overdue for Russia to have such a strong and wise president, one who puts Russia’s interests first—broadly aligned with humanity’s— and who has brought a lot of stability and – for many – even economic prosperity, especially in big cities such as Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, and others. However, a few voiced their concern that while they are proud of the Russian international stand, they think that, definitely, there is not enough being done to improve the lives of ordinary Russians. The misuse of public power for personal gain is rampant, especially where public funds are concerned. [This is hardly unique to Russia, as in America most tax moneys are wasted and stolen in wars and in corporate chicanery of all conceivable sorts. —eds.)

[dropcap]F[/dropcap]or example, in the city of Cheboksary, the capital of the Chuvash Republic, one year ago I was told that a public school would be built by a cluster of the new fancy houses that popped up by the Volga River in the last few years. The place for the school was allocated, the plans were all in place –and the school was really needed for all the local kids around. But here I am, 12 months passed, and where is the school, or at least any sign of the construction? The sight is still the same – the shallow ravine, the aspen grove, and things have not budged an inch. What are the people saying? They think that the money was embezzled by the officials. I was told, “If they managed to steal 92 billion rubles (or $1.8 billion) from the new cosmodrome project in the Far East, no wonder the funds for the school were missed.” For those who don’t know about this reference, Vostochny Cosmodrome is an ambitious $3 billion government project intended to guarantee Russia’s independent access to space. Earlier this year, it became public that more than half of this money has been apparently embezzled. So, you get the picture. Unfortunate as it is, corruption is still an ever-humming leitmotif in Russian life, especially when the governmental funds are concerned. And it appears the people are well aware of it.

Russia's celebration of 70th anniversary--victory over NazisWere there any real critics of Putin’s Russia, one might wonder? Frankly, I have encountered only three of those who offered a harsh criticism. There was an older gentleman in his 80s, who just cannot forgive Putin’s attempt to destroy Chechen terrorists wherever they were found, including in toilets. Since then, this gentleman projects his dislike of Putin’s words to any of his actions, whether in Russia or abroad. When, back then, Putin promised “to pluck out the remaining terrorists from the bottom of a sewer,” it didn’t fare well with some of Russian people. However, while I condemn any violence that was exhibited on both sides – the Chechen and the Russian – it seems to me that the Chechen excessive violence toward the civilian population in Russia was an urgent issue to deal with at that time. Perhaps the cruel means of suppression were the only ones workable given the circumstances, especially since the Chechen insurgents were trained and otherwise supported by the United States.

Donbass soldiers in captured tank.

Donbass soldiers in captured tank.

Two other critics belonged to a younger generation, and their denunciations of Putin were also of a more or less personal matter. The middle-aged man was disappointed that there is not enough attention given in the present day to the victims of Stalin’s repressions. [Stalin’s “repressions” are one of the most divisive topics not only in Russia but worldwide, as the subject is wrapped in thick layers of almost a century of vicious propaganda and strong subjective feelings. Furthermore, the nonstop, deliberate demonization of Stalin was and remains a way for the West to block any advance in people’s minds toward a socialist, egalitarian alternative to capitalism.—eds). If in the past it was a dangerous enterprise to research the topic and publish the results, nowadays, there is almost palpable disinterest to reveal all the details. It is not needed, many say. <>


 

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he third critic was incensed because of the “anti-gay propaganda” law prohibiting “the promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships” as far as the Russian children and youth are concerned. The young woman in her early 30s thinks that there are detrimental effects to this law. Many young people of “non-traditional” orientation have neither a place to go, to meet with like-wise friends, nor the opportunity to share their frustrations and worries. In consequence, they feel as outcasts and, as she said, the suicide rate among the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) youth is high.

As reported by Wikipedia, “Although same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults in private was decriminalized in 1993, same-sex couples and households headed by same-sex couples are ineligible for the legal protections available to opposite-sex couples and there are currently no laws prohibiting discrimination regarding sexual orientation.” Whereas I don’t have much to offer in terms of evaluation of this law, I regret if the banning of the promotion of “non-traditional” sexual relations has resulted in the lack of services offered to LGBT population, in outlawing of almost any expression of support for gay rights, and in cases of harassment. However, as it is the case with Chechnya, I won’t hold Putin personally accountable for this unfortunate state of affairs.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]hat said, it is also possible that the reaction to this law is overly exaggerated in the West. For example, as Jack Hanick writes in his article, “The U.S. Media are Failing in Their Reporting on Russia” (published by Russia Insider), “The punishment for breaking this law is a fine of less than $100. Double-parking a car in Moscow carries a heavier fine of $150. Nonetheless the reaction was overwhelming against Russia. The boycott of the Sochi Olympics was the West’s way of discrediting Russia. Russia saw this boycott as an aggressive act by the West to interfere with its internal politics and to embarrass Russia. Sochi was for Russians a great source of national pride and had nothing to do with politics.” Here we go, as some of us see it again and again, the distortion of reality is blatant and shameless.

Ordinary tribulations

rea-fifa-russia_2018_fifa[dropcap]A[/dropcap]t the end of June, I had a chance to visit Kazan, a capital of the Tatar Autonomous Republic. Also, Kazan is one of the Russian cities where the FIFA competitions ought to run in 2018, provided that Russia will retain its right on this prestigious championship. The first glance at the city shows that this capital is richer and better tended than, for example, the neighbor-city Cheboksary, a capital of the Chuvash Republic. Incidentally, it is not such a surprise because the Republic of Tatarstan has more money, due to the simple fact that it has a plenty of oil and gas. “Money-money-money, money makes the world go around, of that we can be sure …,” as the song in the film Cabaret goes.

The architecture around the downtown area is quite impressive and makes the walk on the streets of the city quite an aesthetic adventure. Kazan is definitely the city where the East meets the West. On the territory of the Kremlin, the Islam mosque is located next to Christian churches, symbolizing the peaceful co-existence. Per Wikipedia, “originally, the mosque was built in the Kazan Kremlin in the 16th century. It was named after Qolşärif, who served there. Qolşärif died with his numerous students while defending Kazan from Russian forces in 1552. … Since 1996 the mosque has been rebuilt in the Kazan Kremlin (a fortified citadel), although its look is decisively modern. Its inauguration on July 24, 2005, marked the beginning of celebrations dedicated to the Millennium of Kazan. It can accommodate 6,000 worshipers. Several countries contributed to the fund that was set up to rebuild Qolşärif Mosque, namely Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Qolşärif is considered to be one of the most important symbols of Tatar aspirations.” [Any Saudi insertion in Russia’s home sphere should be regarded as suspicious if not downright dangerous, given the nature of the Saudi regime, its extremist and treacherous criminality, often in support of Islamic jihadists; its almost unlimited financial power, and overt alliance with Washington, Russia’s number one enemy.—eds.)

Not too far from the Kremlin is a pedestrian Bauman Street, located in the heart of the city. Beside the architectural delight of the buildings fencing the street on both sides, there are such landmarks as the church and the bell tower of the Epiphany, Shalyapin monument, the building of the National Bank, a drama theater, a monument to the Cat of Kazan, the zero meridian, Catherine’s coach, alley of national stars, and even a huge stature of Gulliver that dwarfs any of the bystanders. Also, there are many boutiques, which are, obviously, not for the average folks. Passing by one of those stores, my eyes caught an attractive summer dress displayed in the window-shop. I peeked in, if only out of curiosity. “How much does this dress cost?” I asked. The answer cooled off my expectations – it went for 54,000 rubles, or approximately $1,000. Ok, I thought, if not this dress but maybe this necklace, made of multicolor opaque glass? Well, its price was 27,000 rubles, half of the dress. Just to give you an idea about its “accessibility” for ordinary people, it is important to know that the minimum pension in Russia is about $6,000-7,000 rubles – depending in what region people live. As to those who work, I was told that some of the hard-working people in Chelyabinsk, for example, earn only 7,000 rubles per month. Chelyabinsk is located beyond the Ural Mountains, in the Asian part of Russia. People who live in the European part of Russia are better off, as it seems, but just slightly so. One of the locals in Kazan, my friend and a former classmate in the university, earns only 17,000 rubles a month – and she is a lead nurse, thus, earning more than most of her co-workers. To buy such a dress, they’d have to work almost four months – meanwhile, not paying for anything else.

My cousin, who works in one of the banks in Ulyanovsk – a home of Vladimir Lenin – fares better than my nurse friend. Her monthly wage is 40,000 rubles. So, the way I see it, the financial sector provides a much more lucrative career than vocation in the medical field. The educators are somewhere in between. For example, an academic in Chuvash State University earns only 25,000 rubles. Whereas the Soviet times were marked by more or less even distribution of wealth – the doctors, bank employees, and educators earned enough money for a decent life – the capitalism in Russia has a predatory face.

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]ife in Russia under Putin has improved significantly – as recent IMF data indicates, “From 2000 to 2006, the Russian middle class grew from 8 million to 55 million. The number of families living below poverty line decreased from 30 percent in 2000 to 14 percent in 2008.” But still, the state sector has meager remunerations compared with the private field. Those who work for private companies and business owners themselves are markedly better off than the rest of the Russian population. The way I see it, the disparity in earnings and the style of life is a prominent feature of modern Russian society. Definitely, there is a chasm between the rich, the poor, and those in between. Most of the average folks live ok, though, provided that they have families to support one another. Therefore, the family connection and the support of friends are a must.

ukraine-map

Ukraine and the Ukrainians: “the demolition of false pretenses”

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s far as Ukraine is concerned, the concerted efforts of western governments and their minions in the mass media led to the fact that “what passes for truth” —as many of us know by now—is very often utterly false, or at least distorted to such a degree that it seems ludicrous to those in the know or to those immediate participants who didn’t let themselves be inebriated by excessive propaganda. As Zygmunt Bauman once said, “How quixotic to debunk the distortion in the representation of reality once no reality claims to be more real than its representation.” Nevertheless, the debunking of the distortion is what I strive for.

My recent trip to St. Petersburg was marked by a fascinating conversation about Ukraine, Russia, and beyond. My train companions were three young, husky guys. As I discovered later, all three of them were from Ukraine, from the Kherson region but from different towns. Obviously, I was curious to talk to them about the situation in Ukraine, so I was the one who initiated the chat. First, I was curious if they are tired to be asked about Ukraine all the time. But they didn’t mind, and, as it seemed to me, they were even glad to share their thoughts. Oleg, Valera, and Kolya – those were their names. Kolya was the most talkative one. He said that he got summons to the army, but he escaped to Russia, almost immediately. The declaration of hostility against his brother Slavs in the east of Ukraine didn’t sit well with him. People from his hometown – even some of his friends – asked him, why he didn’t go to war in the Donbass. But he was very clear about it. “Why should I?” he said. “For whose interests and for whom should I go there, for the greedy oligarchs? I don’t want to kill!”

Oleg and Valera were in the same boat – they were drafted and they also didn’t want to fight against their own people. Basically, all three of them have  become fugitives: they cannot live in their respective towns anymore, they had to leave behind whatever life they had before the Maidan (the February 2014 coup) and start their careers anew. Luckily, they found a good job in Russia – they are part of a roofer team (where three of them met one another and became friends), travel from one place to another, and build new roofs for their employer. They are well taken care of – their employer pays for their rent in whatever city they work and for transportation between the cities, when they travel to their next destination. For example, their train tickets were paid for, the taxi fare to their apartment in St. Petersburg will be paid when they arrive, and they don’t need to worry about the rent. Three weeks in St. Petersburg – and they will earn about $1,000 (about 55,000 rubles each – which is much more than some university professors earn). Not such a bad arrangement.

All in all, they like their new life – after all, they have a chance to send enough money to their families in Ukraine to support their loved ones. Back home, people struggle to survive, they said. Utilities went up ten to fifteen times. All prices have skyrocketed. Not enough work too. Some of the coal mines are held in conservation, because there are not enough funds to develop them. Every three months, these young Ukrainians have to take a risk by going back home – the current Russian law allows them to work in Russia only for three months, but then they have to re-enter the country. “Aren’t you afraid you will be snatched up and sent to the army?” I asked. “No,” Valera said, “We could always pay a bribe – $250 can buy the path to freedom.” Also, he thinks that those who went to the army were from the country side, not educated, and they were threatened into submission. He, for one, is well educated (a degree in jurisprudence) and he knows his rights. Because he served in the army already, he could be sent to the army only when Ukraine imposes martial law. Because this hasn’t happened yet, he is sure that no one can make him fight for the sake of the oligarchs.

“What do you think about the Right Sector (notorious neo-Nazi group, marked by extreme violence)?” I asked. Kolya was very quick to answer – “Bastards!” he blurted out. These monsters were in the Kherson region for a while and brought a regime of terror to his town. “They are all well paid,” he said. “For money, they are ready for whatever.” – “Did they kill in your city?” – “I don’t know about killing, but they beat some people severely. And I know about it not from some people but I felt it on my own skin.” Frankly, I didn’t feel comfortable to probe for more information in this regard, but my understanding was that he was badly beaten himself. However, he said that lately the situation has become less out of control – whoever was in charge of these neo-Nazis, it seemed they sent them to another place. And why? Because, if they were to continue with their tactics of terror and intimidation, then the whole south of Ukraine would rebel – and then all hell would break loose for sure.

“What is your opinion of Putin and Russia?” I was curious to hear. The answer was positive regarding either. “We like Putin,” Kolya said. “I have heard that Putin has proposed to extend the three-month stay to one year,” which would be very good for all Ukrainians who work in Russia. Then, they don’t have to risk going back home every three months. As to Russia, this young man thinks that these two peoples, Ukrainian and Russian, are brother-nations. Why should one fight for the oligarchs’ sake? As to the United States, these guys think that people in Ukraine are not hostile to Americans in general, but they know well that the U.S. politicians are the ones who ignited the flames of hatred and warfare and who are planning to grab the black soils of Ukraine (Monsanto’s planning to get hold of their fertile soils). Also, they know that the West doesn’t care about the common folks in Ukraine – they follow the money, so to say, and they act according to their interests only. At the same time, Kolya said that they hate Yatsenyuk (currently, Ukrainian prime minister and also he is one of the Maidan instigators) and Co., the U.S. puppets who are selling Ukraine to the Western companies and make profits themselves while doing this ignominious deed. All in all, they fill their pockets with money at the expense of the people.

Azov Battalion volunteers take oath in Kiev

Members of the notorious Azov battalion, Nazis supported by CIA and oligarchs’ money.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] was also curious to hear their opinion about Bandera (the Nazi collaborator during WW II) and why he is so popular in Ukraine. Kolya said that it is very simple, “People don’t think and they believe what they are told. Someone said that Bandera is a hero and, when it is repeated many times, people tend to believe that. No one knows the real truth anyway,” he said. “We don’t even know what to believe in anymore.” Silence descended on the group after this statement. I was thinking that I cannot even offer an adequate answer to this lack of beliefs. The young generation of Ukraine is definitely confused and even tired of the lies being piled up by all the corrupt politicians they had all their lives, basically. Kolya broke the silence at last. “My granddad went through World War II, until Berlin, and he was wounded only once, not too seriously. However, he fought for three years after the war, he fought against the Bandera bands in Ukraine, and he was wounded three more times even if, officially, the war was over.” He was proud of his grandpa, and I was proud of him keeping the memory of his hero-grandfather and also understanding what the latter was fighting against, as well as keeping his head together in the current times of turmoil and confusion and not willing to fight against his own people in the Donbass. Before Maidan, Kolya had his own business back home, but he lost everything and started his new life by escaping the rabid nationalism and Russophobia of current Ukrainian politicians, earning money in Russia, and helping his family the best way he can.

Yatsenyuk (left): the ghoulish puppet who takes himself seriously.

Yatsenyuk (left): the ghoulish puppet who takes himself seriously.

This time, he asked me, “Do you know how the Maidan started?” No, I had to admit. Kolya said that there was a group of students who came out with the banners for Euro-integration. But they were brutally dispersed. Who gave such an order? Who were those people who beat them up back then? Perhaps those were the Special Forces militants in disguise and perhaps this was a false flag operation, he said. Somehow, he knew that later on, when the crowds converged on the Maidan, they were all paid good money. Those who were in the front rows were paid handsomely, 2,000 hryvnias per day (back then, it was almost $800 or even more). Who paid this money? The West, Kolya thinks. He himself was offered 800 hryvnias to be on the Maidan and participate in the protests. But why, he said. “I didn’t want to sell my country!” But those who did? “They are as a flock of sheep. They don’t care – they get paid, and they don’t care what will happen next.”

Screen Shot 2015-08-05 at 6.19.17 PM

Lizard

 

[dropcap]F[/dropcap]rankly, all three of them greatly impressed me. This conversation was as a breath of fresh air, for it helped me realize that there are some young people in Ukraine who don’t get fooled by whatever amount of propaganda is tossed at them; who don’t let themselves be bullied into killing their own people on the east of Ukraine; who see through their politicians nefarious goals and know better. After all, there is always a choice, and it is up to us which path we choose. As one of the songs goes, “there is a dawn in every darkness; there is a hope in every pain.”

In addition to these guys, I also had a chance to talk to a middle-aged woman from Ukraine about what it feels like to live over there. Originally, she is from Chernigov, the central part of Ukraine, but she has lived in Moscow for two decades at least. However, every summer she visits her homeland, to take care of her mom and spend time with the rest of the family. In our conversation, this woman told me that all the people she knows in Chernigov are completely zombified by the local TV. They watch the news diligently, they don’t like the fact that she lives in Russia, they accuse Russia in starting the war in the Donbass region, and they don’t even want to hear anything of the sort that it is the other way around – the substitution of reality is complete, and any intimations of the truth are being filtered.


 

Many Ukrainians these days are completely zombified by the local TV


 

Frankly, she prefers not to talk to them about Russia at all, and every evening, when everybody else sits in front of TV screens, she goes for a walk. Even the fact that people in Russia are better off, especially after the coup, is held against the neighboring country. The life for ordinary Ukrainians these days is riddled with disappointment, animosity toward anything Russian, hatred in general and toward Putin in particular (as he is the root of all evil!), and survival, survival, survival. I asked how they manage to say afloat, so to speak. The woman told me that every available piece of land is taken to grow vegetables and berries. Basically, the ordinary Ukrainians just deal with whatever limitations they may have by doing what their ancestors did – growing their own food – and also growling at the neighbors who have nothing to do with their trouble at home. The whole state of mind of those who live there leaves the bad taste in her mouth, she said. And this is the native Ukrainian, mind you! 

FINAL THOUGHTS

Overt and cold-blooded distortion of reality is what we mostly see as far as Russia and Ukraine are concerned. Notorious lies spread by the West and their Ukrainian puppets are so prevalent that even Ukrainians themselves don’t know what to think, who the heroes are, or whom to believe. Some have chosen to believe in whatever their politicians feed them. Some others, as those three young guys from Ukraine I had a chance to interview, took the other path – instead of killing their own brethren, they moved to Russia where they built their new lives and, meanwhile, support their families at home. Some of us have chosen to follow the steps of Theodor Adorno, German philosopher, “who was allergic to the power-relations involved in propaganda” (Ben Watson). For him, to condone “using something as imbalanced as the mass media to put over a ‘progressive message’ is to agree with manipulation.”


While it is definitely not easy to go against the Juggernaut of the Western mass media and its pervasive lies, this is what we have to do.russia_us_fists As John Milton said, in Paradise Lost, “Long is the way and hard that out of hell leads up to light.” More often than not we have to take a stance on issues to which the rest of the world – at least its Western part – remains ignorant, indifferent, and unaware of. The chaos of life in Ukraine is often blamed on Russia, but the real culprits – in Ukraine and in the West – deflect the blame, dodge accountability, and get off scot-free. At least so far…

In regards to Russia – yes, as commonly agreed, there is not enough done to improve the lives of ordinary Russians, but still, the Russians are proud of the independent steps that their country is taking in the world these days, the steps that part with the Western dictate. The economic pressure of the Western sanctions is making their lives harder, but they stand firm. They are proud of Putin – the first president in a long spell that people could be proud of because he has Russia’s interests at heart.

All in all, according to what I heard and saw in Russia this summer, Western bullying has only unified the Russian people further, and their support for their country and their truth. 

As readers may have already inferred, the effort to spread their truth, their stance, is the main purpose of this piece. As Spinoza once pointed out, “if I know the truth and you are ignorant” – as the majority in the West is, as far as Russia is concerned – “to make you change your thoughts and ways is my moral obligation; refraining from doing so would be cruel and selfish.”


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

alya-rea-picture-edited-in-picasa


 

Alevtina Rea is a researcher, analyst and writer and a strong supporter of social justice and human rights. For 7 years (2005 – 2012), she worked as an assistant editor with CounterPunch, a leading left political journal in the Anglophone world that exemplifies, along with The Greanville Post and a small cluster of sites, what an oppositional press should be like. Ms. Rea is a contributing author to CounterPunch, Cyrano’s Journal Today, Uncommon Thought Journal, The Greanville Post, the International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, and Russia Insider. She can be reached at rea.alya@gmail.com.

pale blue horiz

FACT TO REMEMBER:
IF THE WESTERN MEDIA HAD ITS PRIORITIES IN ORDER AND ACTUALLY INFORMED, EDUCATED AND UPLIFTED THE MASSES INSTEAD OF SHILLING FOR A GLOBAL EMPIRE OF ENDLESS WARS, OUTRAGEOUS ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, AND DEEPENING DEVASTATION OF NATURE AND THE ANIMAL WORLD,  HORRORS LIKE THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED MANY YEARS, PERHAPS DECADES AGO.  EVERY SINGLE DAY SOCIAL BACKWARDNESS COLLECTS ITS OWN INNUMERABLE VICTIMS. 

pale blue horiz

[printfriendly]

REBLOGGERS NEEDED. APPLY HERE!

Get back at the lying, criminal mainstream media and its masters by reposting the truth about world events. If you like what you read on The Greanville Post help us extend its circulation by reposting this or any other article on a Facebook page or group page you belong to. Send a mail to Margo Stiles, letting her know what pages or sites you intend to cover.  We MUST rely on each other to get the word out! 


 

And remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 


What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?




PuntoPress_DisplayAd_REV






Submitting to Moral Blackmail? Kristen Ghodsee’s “The Left Side of History”

Stephen Gowans | what’s left > BOOK REVIEWS


The Left Side of History-ghodsee_cover

[dropcap]K[/dropcap]risten Ghodsee’s “The Left Side of History: World War II and the Unfulfilled Promise of Communism in Eastern Europe,” is a variegated reflection on socialism as practiced in Eastern Europe, and especially Bulgaria, in the four and half decades following WWII. It is, at one and the same time, a meditation on the purpose of official anti-communism; a near hagiography of the British communist Frank Thompson, the elder brother of the famed historian E.P. Thompson, who died fighting with Bulgarian partisans in WWII; a history of the Lagadinovas, three brothers and a sister (the latter of whom would become famous throughout the socialist bloc as the “Amazon”), who joined the ranks of communist partisans struggling against Bulgaria’s Nazi-allied government; a Philippic against the contemporary political left for being comfortable only with opposition, and lacking any clear sense of what it’s for; and paradoxically, given the foregoing, an execration of communism, filled with the crude anti-communist diatribes one would expect from The Black Book of Communism, and not from one who sets out to explore the heroism of communist partisans and a British communist who fought with them.


 

Ghodsee is an ethnographer whose prior works include “three books on how non-elite Bulgarian men and women experienced the economic transition from communism.” (Ghodsee, 2012)

Function of official anti-communism
In writing The Left Side of History, Ghodsee set out to show there was much good about communism in Bulgaria. She felt that the achievements of communist Bulgaria were hidden beneath an avalanche of official anti-communist demonization. In this, she has responded to a danger foretold by the great historian of the Russian Revolution, E.H. Carr. Referring specifically to the Bolshevik revolution, Carr warned in 1978 that there was little danger that a veil would be drawn “over the enormous blots on the record of the Revolution, over its costs in human suffering, over the crimes committed in its name.”

Indeed, every effort has been made by those who would discredit the Bolsheviks and all they stood for to bring these to the fore. The greater danger, warned Carr, was that

“we shall be tempted to forget altogether, and to pass over in silence, (the Revolution’s) immense achievements…I am thinking of the transformation since 1917 in the lives of ordinary people: the transformation of Russia from a country more than eighty per cent of whose population consisted of illiterate or semi-literate peasants into a country with a population more than sixty per cent urban, which is totally literate and is rapidly acquiring the elements of urban culture…and these things have been brought about by rejecting the main criteria of capitalist production—profits and the laws of the market—and substituting a comprehensive economic plan aimed at promoting the common welfare.” (Carr, 1978)

For her part, Ghodsee celebrates the achievements of Bulgarian communism. It “provided support for working mothers and promoted programs to ensure the de jure and de facto equality of men and women. Communism promoted literacy and education and health care and guaranteed full employment for anyone able to work. Communism gave people jobs, homes, and daily routines that were predictable and stable…” (Ghodsee, 2015: 192)

[dropcap]N[/dropcap]owadays, communism is presented, not as a type of society that stressed the common welfare and the end of exploitation of man by man, but as an abomination equal to Nazism. In 2009, the European Union created a new holiday, the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. Ghodsee condemns this as an attempt to discredit communism at a time the global financial crisis is inspiring austerity-weary populations to seek political alternatives. She cites also as further evidence of the efforts to blot out the rich contribution communists have made to the progress of humanity, a June 2013 decision by a Madrid court ordering the dismantling of a monument that commemorated the sacrifices of the mainly communist International Brigades, volunteers burning with passion for a new, more humane and democratic world, who fought against Franco’s fascists.

In my country, Canada, plans are afoot to erect a monument to the “victims” of communism, leaving ordinary Canadians puzzled as to why. Canada has never been Communist.

But there is a chance that Canadians, and others in the world, bedevilled by unemployment, economic insecurity, diminished economic opportunity and growing material deprivation, will increasingly look to the model provided by the really-existing socialism of the Soviet bloc as an alternative. “Communism may be making a bit of a comeback in Europe,” Ghodsee writes, “but it is also the case that some political elites are working harder than ever to stop it by blackwashing its history.” (Ghodsee, 2015: viii-xix) She adds, “At the exact moment when ordinary people are searching for political alternatives, many official historical institutes are supported (often with funds from the West) to discredit communism.”


Bulgaria's King Boris III and friend.

Bulgaria’s King Boris III and friend.

Victims of communism, promoters of fascism

Ghodsee effectively punctures the growing movement to commemorate the ‘victims’ of communism by showing that the ‘victims’ were hardly innocents, but in many cases, were xenophobes, Judeophobes, and fascists responsible for the deaths, oppression and exploitation of numberless people.

Every year some Bulgarians lay wreaths at a wall inscribed with the names of many who died at the hands of communists. “The victims memorialized on the wall include many political opponents of communism executed after September 1944, when Bulgaria’s communists seized power in this tiny Balkan country,” reported the Associated Press. (Ghodsee, 2015: 192) Ghodsee points out that ‘Nowhere was it mentioned, even in passing, that Bulgaria’s ‘political and military elite’ were allied with Nazi Germany.” (Ghodsee, 2015: 192)


“Nowadays, communism is presented, not as a type of society that stressed the common welfare and the end of exploitation of man by man, but as an abomination equal to Nazism…”


 

The ‘victims’ of communism memorialized in Bulgaria include:

o Bogdan Filov, a passionate and committed ally of Hitler, who as Bulgarian prime minister from 1940 to 1943, deported 11,000 Jews to their deaths at Treblinka;

o Petar Gabrovski, minister of the interior under Filov, and briefly prime minister; a vicious Judeophobe who started his political career as a Nazi;

o Nikola Zhekov, head of the Bulgarian far-right legionnaires and a personal friend of Hitler;

o General Hristo Lukov, the Bulgarian minister of war, who has become an inspiration for today’s neo-Nazis. (Ghodsee, 2015:194-196)

What are we fighting for?

Ghodsee writes of an encounter with students at an Occupy-like encampment.

“I spoke to some students sitting on the ground in front of one of the tents. There was a sign in Bulgarian. It read ‘This is not a protest. This is a process. Revolution for a New Bulgaria.’

“I asked the students why they were protesting. One young woman said, ‘I love my country, but I have no future here. While the Mafia governments stay in power, Bulgaria will never develop, I don’t want to leave. I want to stay and fight and make my country a better place.’

“’Do you have any concrete proposals?” I said. The protestors I had spoken to thus far all had very different ideas about what needed to be done.

“’Free university education,’ she said. The other students nodded. ‘And practical training placements for three years after you graduate.’

“’You mean like it was before?’ I said. Before 1989, the state paid for all university education, and all students completed three years of national service upon graduation. The state guaranteed a job in the student’s area of speciality…

“’Yes,’ the woman said…

“A second woman in the group waited until there was a lull in the conversation before she spoke. ‘There should be more kindergartens,’ she said. ‘Every mother should have a safe place for her child when she works.’

“’You mean like they had under communism?’ I said.

“At the word ‘communism,’ the students tensed.

“’We don’t want communism back,” the first young woman said. ‘We just want a normal country.” (Ghodsee, 2015:166-168)

In a similar vein, Ghodsee recounts a conversation between two elderly Bulgarian women, Elena Lagadinova, who joined the Bulgarian partisans at age 14 and later became a member of the Bulgarian Communist Party Central Committee, and Maria Zneopolska, author of a book on Frank Thompson.

“’Look at these protestors,’ Elena said, ‘They are against the monopolies and the corruption and the foreign capitalists. These are the same things (the communist partisans) were against.’

‘It’s the same fight,” Maria agreed. She looked to Elena and then back at me. ‘But it’s not enough to protest against. Nothing ever changes until the people have something to fight for.’” (Ghodsee, 2015: 175)

Ghodsee’s anticommunism

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hile Ghodsee laments that “strident anticommunist rhetoric demonizes anyone who once called himself or herself a ‘communist’ or who believed in the communist ideal” (Ghodsee, 2015: xvi) and regrets the hegemony of an anti-communist ideology that makes it “easier to assert that the moon landing was staged than it would be to argue that there was anything good about the communist past,” (Ghodsee, 2015: 133) she, herself, reinforces the anti-communism she deplores.

Stalin: Always the man to flog when accusing communism of its putative excesses.

Stalin: Always the man to flog when accusing communism of its putative excesses and failures. Rather than examining the history of Stalin’s Soviet Union from the perspective of the multiple and almost insuperable challenges the country’s leadership faced, Ghodsee offers a strident sophomoric psychological reductionism, transforming Stalin into a kind of cartoon character Dr. Evil, who she depicts as a “megalomaniac” who “hijacked the communist cause” to pursue his “dreams of world domination.”

This, she does, subtly, in earlier publications, through the use of language that implicitly accepts communism as a danger implanted from without. For example, in Ghodsee: Examining the important phenomenon of "red nostalgia" with less than sufficient moral integrity.

Ghodsee: Examining the important phenomenon of “red nostalgia” with less than sufficient moral integrity.

In The Left Side of History Ghodsee abandons subtle anti-communist language for crude, and shockingly puerile, anti-communist rhetoric. After touting the achievements of Bulgaria’s communism, she brands communist Bulgaria “a brutal dystopia ruled by paranoid dictators.” (Ghodsee, 2015: 129) Rather than examining the history of Stalin’s Soviet Union from the perspective of the multiple and almost insuperable challenges the country’s leadership faced, she offers a sophomoric psychological reductionism, transforming Stalin into a kind of cartoon character Dr. Evil, who she depicts as a “megalomaniac” who “hijacked the communist cause” (Ghodsee, 2015: 129) to pursue his “dreams of world domination.” (Ghodsee, 2015; 128) It appears that it is not only the European Union that has drawn an equal sign between Hitler and Stalin.

Against the Stalinist Beelzebub Ghodsee juxtaposes the pure and angelic heroes of her book, Frank Thompson and the Lagadinovas, the ‘good’ communists betrayed by their iniquitous leaders. “I needed to remind myself,” she writes, “that not all who fought or found themselves on the left side of history were radical Marxist zealots bent on world domination.” (Ghodsee, 2015: 199) Ghodsee wants us to believe that everything good about communism in Bulgaria is traceable to Thompson, the Lagadinovas, and the good communists, and all the bad is due to “Stalinists.”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his, however, is completely indefensible. The Bulgarian partisans and Frank Thompson had very little to do with the gains communism implanted in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian partisans were, by Ghodsee’s own admission, largely ineffective. They spent most of their time eking out a bare existence, frequently betrayed by peasants who didn’t support them. Unlike in neighboring Greece and Yugoslavia, where foreign occupations galvanized people to support the communist-led guerrilla resistance, Bulgaria was allied with Nazi Germany and endured no foreign occupation. The lives of most Bulgarians during the war were quiet, and they did not support the communist guerrillas. It was the Red Army, under Stalin’s leadership, that ultimately toppled Hitler’s allies in Sofia, and brought communism to Bulgaria. Stalin, far more than the Lagadinovas, and especially the hapless (though admirable) Frank Thompson, is responsible for the immense social gains Bulgaria enjoyed during the communist period.

Ghodsee’s politics

Ghodsee’s political ideal, revealed in her various other writings, is “a more socially oriented state akin to the Scandinavian welfare state—states that combine democracy with social security.” (Ghodsee, 2004) She doesn’t say what she means by ‘democracy,” though it appears that she means a multiparty state, or at least, not the socialist states of central and eastern Europe in which one party, that of the Communists, was hegemonic. What she’s against is “the overly-individualistic, savage capitalism of the United States and the United Kingdom,” (Ghodsee, 2004) but is also against “one-party rule and leaders who remained unchallenged for thirty-five years” (Ghodsee, 2015: 191). She favors a combining of the full-employment, social welfare, egalitarian politics of the communist states (democracy as a type of society) with the procedural democracies of North America and Western Europe (democracy as a set of rules for electing representatives.) In this she is guilty of what she faults the contemporary left for: being clear on what she’s against (‘savage’ capitalism* and the one-party state), but having no concrete proposal for how to bring about the implied alternative, namely, socialism within a multi-party state—nor any sense, one suspects, of whether a socialist state with a Western-style parliamentary democracy is at all possible in a world profoundly dominated politically, economically, militarily and ideologically by a capitalist elite, who will no more accept a “democratic” socialism than an “undemocratic” one. The only difference between the socialism Ghodsee lionizes and the socialism she deplores is that the first has never existed. It’s as if, like the supporters of Syriza, Ghodsee believes that all one has to do is vote against capitalism (or austerity) and the capitalist elite, its institutions, and imperatives will meekly step aside. Jean Bricmont offers a refreshing corrective to Ghodsee’s naiveté. “If it is true, as often said, that most socialist regimes turn out to be dictatorships that is largely because a dictatorship is much harder to overthrow or subvert than a democracy.” (Bricmont, 2006)

Conclusion

The Left Side of History is not without its charms. Ghodsee does stress the importance for the left of having a clear idea of what it’s for and concrete proposals for how to get there. She makes the case, cogently I think, that the upsurge in official anticommunism is linked to the financial crisis and austerity and the need of ruling elites to eclipse, what from their point of view, is a danger that in a searching for political alternatives, people will turn to the really-existing socialism of the Soviet bloc for inspiration. She has shown that many of the so-called victims of communism were hardly innocent, but instead were victimizers—often fascists, racists and xenophobes, responsible for the persecution, oppression and deaths of numberless people. And in exploring the lives of Frank Thomson and the Lagadinovas, she challenges official anti-communism by pointing to communists who were not the “red scum” of official anticommunist demonology but selfless heroes with a burning passion for a more humane, democratic world.

The weakness of The Left Side of History lies in Ghodsee’s occasional substitution of anti-communist slogans for critical analysis, as in her portrayal of Stalin as a paranoid bent on world domination who hijacked a good cause and turned it to evil ends. In this she concedes to the official demonology. To be sure, in her view, Thompson and the Lagadinovas were communist heroes but Stalin and Stalinists were red scum. What Ghodsee loses sight of was that Thompson and the Lagadinovas were members of a movement in which Stalin played a central role, and could therefore, themselves, be called “Stalinists.” What’s more, Stalin, to far greater degree than Ghodsee’s chosen heroes, brought the achievements of communism to Eastern Europe.

Another weakness is Ghodsee’s depiction of communist Eastern Europe as a brutal dystopia. Indeed, this borders on bizarre, considering that she attributes the rise in official anticommunism to a need on the part of ruling elites to discredit communism as a model. Why would anyone feel compelled to discredit a brutal dystopia?

One could speculate that in writing The Left Side of History, Ghodsee was filled with a dread that her favorable assessments of communism would inevitably mean she would be denounced as a Stalinist. Could it be that as a prophylaxis, she armored herself with anti-Stalinist rhetoric? Her rhetoric is fevered, of a more rabid variety than even conservatives are capable of. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone seriously accuse Stalin—the champion of socialism in one country, the man who dismantled the Comintern and pursued what his leftist critics called an overly cautious foreign policy–of having had an agenda of world domination.

If indeed fear of being denounced as a Stalinist led Ghodsee to the missteps that have almost fatally weakened The Left Side of History, she might have looked to E.H. Carr for inspiration. After publicly declaring his concern that the achievements of communism would be expunged from history, Carr acknowledged that, “Of course, I know that anyone who speaks of the achievements of the Revolution will at once be branded as a Stalinist. But I am not prepared to submit to this kind of moral blackmail.” (Carr, 1978)

*Savage capitalism implies there’s some other kind of capitalism, perhaps a gentle one. But this is tantamount to distinguishing a gentle slavery from a savage slavery, as if indeed, a gentle slavery (or a gentle capitalism) is anything but an oxymoron.


[box]

References

Jean Bricmont. Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War. 2006

Kristen Ghodsee, “The Specter Still Haunts: Revisiting 1989,” Dissent, Spring 2012

E.H. Carr, “The Russian Revolution and the West,” New Left Review 1/111/ September-October 1978.

Kristen Ghodsee, “Red Nostalgia? Communism, Women’s Emancipation, and Economic Transformation in Bulgaria,” L,Homme Z. F. G. 15, 1 (2004)

Kristen Ghodsee, Lost in Transition: Ethnographies of Everyday Life after Communism. Duke University Press Books, 2011.

Kristen Ghodsee. The Left Side of History: World War II and the Unfulfilled Promise of Communism in Eastern Europe. Duke University Press. 2015.

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 


What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?




PuntoPress_DisplayAd_REV






Former British King Wanted Anglo-Nazi Alliance, England Bombed – Archives

Sputnik Dispatch


 

Windsors-Hitler

The merry Windsors with the Fuhrer. It was no secret that the former king had a warm spot for the Nazis “and their accomplishments.” /© AP Photo


 

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]

Although war-era letters between members of the Royal family and their German relatives remain confidential thanks to the Royal Archives, information acquired through the open archives of 30 countries including Germany, Spain and Russia has shed light on the close relationship many figures of Europe’s aristocracy had with the Nazis.

Dr Karina Urbach, senior research fellow at the Institute of Historical Research at the School of Advance Study at the University of London, has uncovered how the Duke of Windsor blamed “the Jews, the Reds and the Foreign Office for the war,” during a conversation with his friend and Spanish diplomat Don Javier Bermejillo.

According to the documents, the Duke, who was forced to abdicate as King in 1936, after proposing to divorced American woman Wallis Simpson, held great disdain for the UK’s political establishment, reportedly telling Bermejillo that he would like to put former British Prime Minister Anthony Eden and other politicians “up against a wall.”

However, more explosive revelations came about during a separate conversation between the two on June 25, 1940, with Bermejillo reporting that Windsor argued that the bombing of England could help bring peace as it would end the war.

The Duke's pro-Nazi sentiments were widely—almost unanimously—mirrored by Europe's aristocracy.

It’s a classy question: The Duke’s pro-Nazi sentiments were widely—almost unanimously—mirrored by Europe’s aristocracy.

Writing for ‘The Conversation’, Dr Urbach noted how, according to Spanish documents, the “Duke of Windsor seemed very much to hope that this would occur,” with Bermejillo relaying the message to his superiors that the Duke “wants peace at any price.”

The report of the conversation was passed to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, and subsequently forwarded onto Hitler, who ordered the bombing of Britain on July 10, 1940.

Duke Wanted Anglo-German Alliance With Nazis

Further details of the Duke’s connection to the Nazis, for whom he has long been identified as a sympathizer, have also been uncovered through archives, which have revealed the close relationship between Windsor and his relative, the German Duke of Coburg.

Dr Urbach writes that “Coburg was part of a wider group of go-betweens — private individuals who were used for secret negotiations by Hitler,” further revealing the network of privileged Europeans who were sympathetic to the Nazi cause.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Duke of Coburg, who had helped hide some of Hitler’s supporters following the failed Putsch of 1923 was later used by the Nazis for secret diplomatic missions to the UK, Italy, Hungary and Sweden throughout the 1930s, where he was subsequently welcomed by the British Royal family during visits.

In particular, the documents reveal how both Duke of Windsor and his German relative seemed to share similar points of view when it came to dividing power across Europe.

“It was only by turning to intelligence reports and foreign archives that I was able to piece together that the Duke of Coburg and the Duke of Windsor dreamt of an Anglo-German alliance. Windsor helped Coburg towards this goal on several different occasions,” Dr Urbach wrote.

So close was the connection between the two, Dr Urbach said that Soviet intelligence services were “convinced” of the Duke’s treachery, reporting in 1940 that Windsor was “conducting negotiations with Hitler to form a new English government and conclude a peace with Germany contingent on a military alliance against the USSR.”

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 


What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?









G-7 summit convenes amid US threats against Russia

Patrick Martin


 

Munich saw large protests against the G7 Summit.  "Angela Your Are NOT Welcome!" was a widely shared sentiment.

Munich saw large protests against the G7 Summit. “Angela You Are NOT Welcome!” was a widely shared sentiment.


[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s the leaders of the seven most powerful imperialist nations assembled near the south German resort town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen for the annual G-7 (Group of Seven) summit, US officials kept up a drumbeat of demands for intensified economic and military pressure on Russia over the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

As he arrived for the talks, Obama said a major focus of the summit would be “standing up to Russian aggression in Ukraine.” He reiterated the US position that there should be no letup of economic pressure on Russia, saying, “The duration of sanctions should be clearly linked to Russia’s full implementation of the Minsk agreements and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

Obama left the more provocative saber-rattling to defense officials. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter met Friday in Stuttgart, Germany with most of the US regional commanders, as well as with American ambassadors to NATO, Russia, Turkey, Germany, France, Estonia and Italy, to discuss military and diplomatic efforts in relation to Ukraine and Russia.

The official purpose was to draft plans ahead of a NATO summit later this month. But Carter used the occasion to make a pointed attack on Russia, claiming that NATO had to devise methods to fight a wide range of methods of subversion in Ukraine and eastern Europe as a whole. “It’s a mixture of subversion and sophisticated threat making, manipulation of information, the big lie—all this cocktail that we saw in Ukraine,” Carter said.


What does this man really think? What does he really believe? Because he surely knows what he's doing.

What does this man really think? What does he really believe? Because he surely knows what he’s doing.

This language would apply more accurately to the US-German policy in Ukraine, which fomented a coup in February 2014, spearheaded by fascist groups, that ultimately brought to power the current government of President Petro Poroshenko, a billionaire oligarch, and provoked both Russian intervention in Crimea and the conflict with pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

The defense secretary appeared to dismiss the effectiveness of economic sanctions against Russia, implying that other, more forceful actions might be required. “It’s clear the sanctions are working on the Russian economy, but what is not apparent is that that effect on his economy is deterring Putin from following the course that was evidenced in Crimea last year,” he said, calling Moscow “an enduring challenge.”

Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, echoed the opinion that while sanctions had delivered a “tremendous hit to the Russian economy,” they had not been effective in changing Russian behavior in Ukraine. “Clearly President Putin’s calculus has not fully shifted by any means,” he told CNN.

General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal, in which he said that Russia was engaged in “subversive activities” against NATO members.

“On certain issues, President Putin has actually stated his intent,” Dempsey said. “One of his clearer statements is that he considers NATO to be a threat to him and will look for opportunities to discredit and eventually undermine the alliance.”


The degree of Orwellian hypocrisy displayed by the Americans and their EU accomplices in the unipolar imperial game is truly staggering.


The US and NATO members threatened by Russia had to prepare for unspecified preventive action, he said. “It is about hardening before the crisis occurs,” Dempsey told the Journal. “Once the crisis occurs you get into this debate about what is escalatory and what is not escalatory. This is about acting precrisis to deter and prevent crisis.”

The meaning of “hardening before the crisis” is demonstrated by the endless series of large-scale military maneuvers that NATO forces have been conducting in the Black Sea, across eastern Europe, in the Baltic Sea and in Scandinavia—in other words, along the entire western border of European Russia—involving tens of thousands of troops, hundreds of warplanes and dozens of naval vessels.

A naval exercise involving forces from 17 countries began June 5 in the Baltic, while a 10-day test deployment of the new NATO quick-reaction strike force begins June 9 in Poland. NATO will also hold its summit next year in the Polish presidential palace in Warsaw, the city where the Warsaw Pact was signed in 1955, linking the countries of the eastern Europe Soviet bloc.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that Russia and Ukraine took up fully half of the meeting between Obama and Merkel that preceded the formal summit talks. He said Obama and G-7 summit host Merkel “agreed that preserving the unity of the U.S. and our European allies and partners is a top priority.”

European Union sanctions against Russia are to expire June 30, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the G-7 host, and the European leaders attending the summit—British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President François Hollande, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and Donald Tusk, head of the European Council—have already indicated the sanctions would be extended.

Tusk, the former prime minister of Poland, was the most aggressive. “My intention is that today we reconfirm G-7 unity on the sanctions policy,” he said. “So let me state clearly given the current situation, if anyone wants to start a discussion about changing the sanctions regime, it could only be about strengthening it.”

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper sounded a similar note, visiting Ukraine before the summit in order to emphasize his solidarity with the right-wing regime.

The other summit participant, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is mainly concerned with imperialist provocations on the other side of the world, the intensifying clashes with China over the South China Sea.

In an interview Saturday with the leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Russian President Vladimir Putin called on the EU and the US to pressure Ukraine to adhere to the terms of the Minsk agreement, signed in February, which imposed a limited ceasefire in east Ukraine.

He said unnamed countries were “simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to Russia” in order to get military and economic aid they would not otherwise receive. “There is no need to fear Russia,” Putin continued. “Only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO.”

On Monday, the summit members will go on to discuss military conflicts in other parts of the world, particularly those involving Islamic fundamentalist groups like ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and Boko Haram in Nigeria. For that purpose, they have invited Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, Tunisian President Essebsi and newly elected Nigerian President Muhammad Buhari.

As has become traditional at these summits, the meeting was held at an isolated location surrounded by a virtual wall of police, with some 22,000 deployed by the government of Germany, the host country. In the event, there were only minor clashes with demonstrators, but the leaders were nonetheless brought in by helicopter Sunday, with police claiming that protesters had blocked the access road.


[box] The author is a senior political analyst with wsws.org, a member of the 4th International (a Trotskyst organization). [/box]

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 


What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?