Saturday, March 22, 2014

Western Hypocritical Hysteria over Reunification of Crimea with Russia

How the West Is Reacting to the Reunification of Crimea and Russia

Dmitriy SEDOV | 21.03.2014 | 00:00

At first it seemed like everything was going according to the 1945 Allen Dulles plan, which supposedly no one has ever seen, but which America has been following faithfully for many decades. In the very beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, Western political leaders quoted in unison the political dictionary created at the start of the Cold War which has become a time-honored reference when assessing any events connected with Russia: Russia is a totalitarian regime, the Russian leader is a dictator, Russian foreign policy is imperialist, Moscow cannot be trusted, the Ukrainian nationalists are freedom fighters, the deadly shootings on the Maidan are peaceful demonstrations, the banditry of fascists in Ukrainian cities is restoration to order, the putschists in Kiev are the lawful government, the referendum in Crimea ( is a violation of international law, and the reunification of Crimea and Russia is an annexation.

The repetition of these phrases was accompanied by threats from Western leaders, who constantly stated that Russia would «pay a steep price» for returning Crimea. Added to all of this were the howls of the Russian fifth column, in which Allen Dulles did not hope in vain.

In all, everything was going according to plan. However, at some point the mechanism started to malfunction. More specifically, in the heat of the moment some major figures made what are usually called «Freudian slips». President Obama probably forgot the wise old Anglo-Saxon saying «never say never» when he stated to President Putin that the U.S. would «never acknowledge the results of the referendum in Crimea». He did not even suspect that Freud defines the «no way, no how» attitude as one of intellectual and moral stupor. And really, who will care if the U.S. doesn't acknowledge the results of the declaration of the will of the people of Crimea? Especially since, as if mocking the American president, the U.S. National Geographic Society has stated its intention to show Crimea as part of Russia on its maps. There they make maps of the world as it is, and not as some politicians would like it to be.

No less interesting is the slip made by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who stated that «the international community condemn[s] the continuing assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty» and called Russia's actions a «land grab». He threatened Moscow with new sanctions and promised that a missile defense site will appear in Poland no later than 2018, and that Washington will help modernize the Polish army. Interesting. They have always linked the installation of American missile defense systems in Poland to neutralizing threats from Iran. Washington has assured Moscow dozens of times that the European missile defense systems are not aimed against Russia. And now a Freudian slip. So they are aimed against Russia after all?

And immediately other «victims of Russia's imperialist policy», the Baltic States, started scurrying. They realize that the return of Crimea to its historic homeland cannot but inspire the discriminated-against Russian minority in these countries. However, rather than thinking about how to regulate the situation within their own countries, they are talking about the need to increase U.S. and NATO presence in the Baltic region. Estonian defense minister Urmas Reinsalu is already having nightmares. «We know that a bill has been discussed in the State Duma on the possible annexation of territories of other countries to the Russian Federation,» he stated, and expressed the hope that American troops would come to Estonia. The Pentagon looks with favor on such sentiments.

 Now there are ten USAF F-15C fighter planes patrolling the skies of the Baltic region, although the Russian General Staff believes that this looks more like military and political exhibitionism. And apparently in order that these Baltic allies may not lose their taste for such perversions, the U.S. vice president has announced plans for an increase in American military presence in the Baltic States. 

The behavior of «Europe's tough guy», Francois Holland, is also interesting from a Freudian perspective. In his typical aging macho style, Hollande stated that «Paris is preparing a forceful reaction to events in Crimea». Perhaps, he said, France would even back out of the contract for Mistral class ships. Of course, the Russian military industrial complex's response was a cold shower for the macho man: «We can build ferries like that without the French. They're nothing complicated».

It remains to be seen who he will punish by backing out, Russian shipbuilders or his own, but he is definitely giving Front National leader Marine Le Pen a trump card. The Front National in France has acknowledged the results of the referendum in Crimea. So the scare tactics promised by Holland will most likely remain empty words.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has behaved more decorously than the other «truth monopolists». While formally playing the part dictated by Brussels regarding the «violation of international law», she has not made any threats toward Moscow. Maybe this is because she belongs to the older generation of Germans, which values relations with Russia, and maybe it is because Germany has its own view of the future of Europe, and Russia occupies a prominent place in this future. One can sense in Merkel's position an unwillingness to make a world cataclysm out of the Crimean precedent. 

So not everyone in the Euro-Atlantic community is willing to follow London, which demonstrated the most frenzied reaction to the reunification of Crimea and Russia. The head of the British Foreign Office, William Hague, said the following on the topic: «I would not describe it as a new cold war, but that will depend on the course of events over the coming days».

Incidentally, if you consider that the majority of currency transactions made by Russian foreign trade operators go through London City, and a reduction in them would be a blow to British financiers, it is obvious that Hague plans, in England's traditional style, to fight by proxy. Chancellor Merkel is probably familiar with Bismarck's phrase that «the English always look for fools who are willing to sacrifice themselves for them,» and is unlikely to rush to be in solidarity with London in all things.

In all, there is no full unanimity in the West as to how to «punish» Russia. There is no fighting spirit or confidence in success to be seen. It seems that the G7 meeting on the Ukrainian issue coming up at the end of the week will not produce any earthshaking results. 
And the statements of Western politicians that Russia has ended up in «world isolation» sound just plain funny. After all, the world exists outside the U.S. and NATO. Russia's actions regarding Crimea have been supported by China, India, and many countries of Latin America, Europe and Africa.
The political dictionary of Allen Dulles has long been hopelessly outdated. Few still recognize it. And those who use this dictionary are ending up in the position of duped agents of narrow corporate interests of a very specific nature.