The situation in Ukraine may seem complicated, but the origin of what Western governments and media euphemistically call this 'crisis' is very clear.
It wasn't the corruption of former President Yanukovych, it wasn't
Putin's "annexing of Crimea", and it wasn't "pro-Russian militias on the
orders of Putin" demanding independence. It all started, as with so
many other 'crises' around the globe, with Western politicians and
bankers deciding that they needed more 'lebensraum'1, and
sources of cheap human capital and natural resources, to prop up Western
nations' junk economies that have been looted by the same bankers and
Picture, if you will, the following fictional scenario:
Russia has long sought to diminish the influence and
power of the USA on the world stage and, at the same time, acquire new
territory, resources and cheap labor for Russian oligarchs and banking
interests. As part of their decades-long strategy to achieve this aim,
they have slowly infiltrated and compromised the governments and
national integrity of South and Central American countries, forcing them
to take an 'anti-US' approach in everything from trade to cultural
Due to its physical proximity and its long-standing trade and cultural
links with the USA, one of the only Central (or South) American
countries still on friendly and mature terms with the USA is Mexico.
Mexico is a large country with plentiful natural resources, and enjoys
many benefits from its economic and cultural association with the USA.
The USA provides Mexico with cheap oil for example, many of the biggest
Mexican corporations are owned by US citizens, and up to 40% of the
Mexican population is of North American origin and speaks English as
their first language. Most of these people, however, are concentrated in
Northern Mexican states along the US border. In addition, the US Navy
has an historic naval base on Mexican territory, on the Baja California
Despite these long-established facts on the ground, the Russian
government has decided that it is time to finish the job of neutralizing
American influence in the Americas (and beyond) by removing Mexico from
the USA's 'sphere of influence' and into Russia's.
The Russian plan is fairly simple and follows methods that have been used in other parts of the world.
The Russian government begins to fund and train hundreds of 'grass roots
activist' groups in Mexico who then mobilize their members into mass
protests against the 'corrupt' Mexican government and its president who
has close ties with the USA. As a result of long-term Russian efforts to
infiltrate Mexican politics, many members of Mexican political parties
are aligned with Russia and are now part of the Russian plot and are
encouraging the violence on the streets. Some of these politicians are
also the leaders of openly fascistic 'Mexican supremacist' or 'La Raza'
organisations and political parties that have a long tradition of
anti-Americanism going back to the 1846 Mexican-American war, which was
ignited by the U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of
its territory. These ultra-nationalist Mexican groups and parties have
apparently failed to recognize that 1846 was a long time ago and the US
is no longer a threat to Mexican territory.
As the protests in the Mexican capital gain momentum, they turn
increasingly violent with the "Mexican supremacist" organisations among
the protestors occupying and burning government buildings. They are
armed with Molotov cocktails and guns and shoot, burn and kill dozens of
policemen, and it is suspected that the same organisations have been
carrying out sniper attacks on both policemen and protestors. At this
stage the first signs of the hidden agenda begin to be seen when the
pro-Russia Mexican politicians, and the Russian government itself, claim
that the USA is involved in the shooting of protestors and warn it to
stay out of Mexico's internal affairs.
In a single day, over 100 people, including policemen, are killed in the
protests and the Mexican president is forced to flee the country along
with many members of parliament. A coup has taken place, and a new
"interim government" is installed that includes the political
representatives of the "Mexican supremacist" groups because, after all,
it was their 'minions' that were behind most of the violence that
effected the coup.
A leaked telephone conversation between two high level officials in the
Russian ministry of foreign affairs reveals that the new "interim
government" in Mexico had been chosen in advance by the Russian
government. The USA, naturally, isn't happy.
The USA decides that it has to act, and act quickly, if it is to protect
itself against this proxy attack on its national integrity and
interests both in the USA and in Mexico, and protect the many ethnic
Americans living in Mexico. The US Naval base in the Baja California
peninsula is vital to the US military because, due to "global warming",
almost all of the US Western coastlines are iced-over in winter. The
Naval base in Baja California is therefore one of the US's few remaining
year-round warm water ports that provide access to the Pacific.
(Panama, being heavily pro-Russian, had long since made US gulf access
to the pacific via the Panama canal unreliable.) The peninsula is also
heavily populated with ethnic Americans who have been watching the
events unfold in Mexico City with increasing alarm. In particular, they
are horrified at the coup-installed government's proposed nation-wide
laws that would ban the speaking of English in the country.
The coup-installed pro-Russia Mexican government is outraged, as are the
Russians, with the Russian Foreign Minister denouncing the move as an
"incredible act of aggression" by the USA and stating that "you just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretexts."
Of course, the US move to secure Baja California was not on a
"trumped-up pretext" but rather as a direct result of the
Russian-inspired coup in Mexico City that was, in itself, an indirect
attack on the USA.
Mexican citizens in the other, naturally US-aligned, northern Mexican
states of Sonora and Chihuahua are appalled at the fascist takeover of
their government and naturally reject the new, unelected, foreign
coup-installed 'leaders' for what they are, a bunch of racist and
fascist crazies sponsored by a foreign government that has no business
being anywhere near Mexico or the USA. The ordinary citizens of Northern
Mexican states declare that they want no part of this new neo-Nazi-led
'government' and assert their independence from it by taking over local
government buildings and declaring that they will hold a referendum to
explore the possibility of seceding from the Mexican nation.
In response, the new Russian-backed authorities in Mexico City send the
National Guard and private mercenary companies to the Northern states to
put down what they describe as a "terrorist insurrection" and declare
that any referendums in these states are "totally illegal". Many
civilians are shot dead by the new Mexican authorities in an effort to
cow the secessionist states. In addition, the Russian puppet government
in Mexico and the Russian government itself have both publicly accused
the USA of fomenting dissent in the Northern Mexican states and funding
the anti-interim-government protestors. The reality is that, while the
protestors in the Northern states are naturally 'pro-USA' because of
their cultural and historical ties, they are first and foremost against a
fascist takeover of their country at the behest of a foreign power, in
this case, Russia.
Nevertheless, Russia and its client states in central and South America
announce that they will impose economic sanctions on the USA for its
interference in their attempt to destroy historic US-Mexico relations.
The US government, however, is largely unperturbed. Sanctions imposed by
Russia and its client states in South and Central America are
toothless, with many nations quietly honoring their trade agreements and
contracts with the USA. For its part, the US government realises that
the historical facts on the ground in Mexico, in particular the strong
ethnic and cultural ties that link much of the population of Mexico to
the USA, mean that the Russian attempts to 'remake' Mexico is doomed to
All attempts by the Russian government and its Mexican puppets to
suppress by force the breakaway movements in the Northern Mexican states
are destined to backfire and simply increase local anger and revulsion
toward Mexico and strengthen the secessionist movement. This fact-based
reality is unlikely, however, to dissuade the Russians or their 'tools
of intrigue' in Mexico City.
The Russian political and banking elite have long believed that the map
of the world, with its complex (and sometimes delicate) national and
ethnic mix, is entirely mutable, if enough manipulation and force is
applied. On many occasions, Russian force and manipulation have indeed
succeeded in reshaping the political and demographic makeup of nations
and whole regions, albeit with catastrophic consequences for the local
population. But in this case, it seems that the Russian
'reality-creators' have met their match in the form of a implacable
combination of a local Mexican population that is wise to their
manipulations, and a US government that is strong enough and determined
enough not to back down in the face of the Russian Imperial juggernaut.
If this fictional scenario were to be played out in reality, I'm sure I
can guess where the allegiance of US and Western citizens would lie. But
what if the nations were changed, with Russia and the US switched and
Ukraine in the place of Mexico? What would be your take on the situation
then? Because, with those changes, the above scenario is precisely how
the 'Ukrainian crisis' has played out to date. With the US in the role
of aggressor, does your interpretation of the facts change? Do you fall
back into a 'Western perspective' and defend that which, with only
cosmetic changes, you would otherwise describe as "indefensible"?
When the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to declare independence
and then join the Russian Federation, Western politicians, particularly
those in the USA, claimed that the vote was illegitimate because it
occurred under duress, "with the barrel of a gun pointed at you",
according to Obama. Yet, in the run up to the vote in May's Presidential
elections in Ukraine, when the 'chocolate king', Ukrainian oligarch
Poroshenko, emerged victorious, the Ukrainian military had been firing
rockets at Eastern Ukrainian citizens, and journalists were being killed
and kidnapped on the orders of the interim government in Kiev, all with
the full support of the US government. Indeed, Obama personally called
Poroshenko to congratulate him on his victory and called the elections, "a
major step for Ukrainians who have repeatedly demonstrated their desire
to choose their leaders without interference and to live in a democracy
where they can determine their own future free of violence and
Russian involvement in Ukraine an example of what Western powers claim to do
At the NATO summit in Wales last week, General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, Britain's most senior commander in NATO, said there had been "some deception and some deceit" from the Russian side over the conflict in Ukraine, and that "the
reality on the ground is that Russian regular armed forces are being
employed on the territory of Ukraine in support of this separatist
Should we therefore all be outraged along with our Western 'leaders'?
Well, it depends. If you live in 'moo-moo' land, where, over the past 70
years, Western governments have been paragons of virtue and all things
wonderful, and have only ever involved themselves in the affairs of
supposedly sovereign nations in order to stamp out evil and bring
"freedom and democracy" to all, then yes, you should be outraged that
Russia would involve itself in Ukrainian affairs.
If, on the other hand, you live in the real world and know the actual
history and truth about Western intervention around the world over the
past 70 years, specifically, that successive US administrations have
been waging an aggressive war of imperial conquest, overthrowing
democratically elected governments and torturing, killing and maiming
untold millions of people, then you can only conclude that what Russia
is doing in Ukraine is entirely justified as per the unofficial rules of
geopolitical 'play' as established long ago by Western powers.
More to the point, you must also conclude that Russia's involvement in
Ukraine is extremely 'small potatoes' in that respect and, indeed, one
of the extremely rare examples of a major world nation actually doing what US and Western governments have claimed to be doing as they expanded the Anglo-American Empire across the globe, i.e. defending actual freedom and democracy and the rights of ordinary people to determine their own futures.
The following is a (by no means complete) list of instances where the US
govt., intelligence agencies and military have directly intervened in
(and in many cases invaded) supposedly sovereign nations, not for the
purpose of spreading 'freedom and democracy" but to achieve precisely
the opposite goal: to overthrow a democratically-elected government that
has the best interests of its people at heart; to install a brutal
dictatorial regime that invariably went on, with continued US help, to
murder countless thousands of its civilian population and, in general,
to make the world safe for American corporations, enhance the financial
statements of US defense contractors who contribute generously to
members of Congress, prevent the rise of any society that might serve as
a successful example of an alternative to the predatory capitalist
model, and extend political and economic hegemony over as wide an area
as possible, as befits a 'great power'.
In contrast, Russian involvement in Ukraine was for the express purpose
of preventing the march of this same great and brutal power and to
provide support to a genuine and popular East Ukrainian movement for
independence from a US imposed-by-coup, right-wing, fascist, Nazi regime
that threatened the basic rights and lives of the Eastern Ukrainian
To call the US and Western stance on Russian involvement in Ukraine
'hypocritical' really doesn't accurately describe the egregious
mendacity exhibited by Western psychopaths in power. Welcome to the real
Here's the list of direct US military interventions in the affairs of other nations since 1945, as compiled by historian William Blum with some updates by me.
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The
neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the
CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was
carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere,
including systematic torture.
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks
were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the
U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then
installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the
dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular
progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated
with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage,
terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany.
This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin
Wall in 1961.
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British
operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large
majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of
spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The
coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years
of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to
foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating
40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and
unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims - indisputably
one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz
had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had
extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for
the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a
Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the
country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real
problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the
danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in
Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to
use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting
assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by
international communism." The English translation of this was
that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence
over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and
that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping
with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the
Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to
intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan
and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow
or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United
States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously,
making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as
well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the
former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian
Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making
impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other
Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the
elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail
him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military
officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno
survived it all.
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office.
Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral
and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so
than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary.
But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's
greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of
an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of
tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and
British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former
colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and
his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and
admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of
Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman
and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese
independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his
country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new
Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it
with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with
..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was
some kind of Communist.US-terrorists
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the
United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say
that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and
poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had
achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a
good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many
years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots
and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70,
Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all
that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the
fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American
bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To
add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and
diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.
The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister
after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral
wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration
officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at
Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries,
called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation,
and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white
owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man
was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba
was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States,
and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of
Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil
conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a
stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than
30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his
CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the
plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual 'crimes': He took
an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with
socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his
administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits
multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary
of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And
Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing
"communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was
no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a
medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to
save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep,
covert American involvement. The official Washington line
was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in
Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted:
Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual
extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended,
criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken
over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by
police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned
down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a
remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name
for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.
Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically
elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was
John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that
the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was
to be the long sought "showcase of democracy" that would put the lie to
Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly
before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform,
low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign
investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country
and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World
leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious
about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to
be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans,
as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land
reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the
stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the
U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United
States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a
frown, did nothing. Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which
promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.
Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S.
National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its
agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in
Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings,
full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation,
assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a
very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone,
if not constantly under the gun and the threat of a U.S. invasion, if
allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the
talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with
American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the
ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led
by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately - of Communists,
Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist
sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times
"one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The
estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at
half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had
compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to
village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the
army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment."
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a
Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a
Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the
constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the
very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the
doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can
take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that
power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and
failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the
rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in
their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three
years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility.
Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government,
Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks
rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the
sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and
floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the
subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser
legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor
returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington
and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the
campaign for national elections was to begin, elections which appeared
certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as
prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the
only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The
successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint
effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American
military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed
immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests,
beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the
first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration
that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist
takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life
were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign
newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year
Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by
Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to
the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his
desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of
American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of
resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do
anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that
side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no
one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government,
behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S.
You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal
anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a
little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take
Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.
East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the
eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its
independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The
invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving
Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could
not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable
tool in Southeast Asia.
1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor,
had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and
700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to
East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a
remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the
military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was
clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast -
"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the
revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence
was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of
Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras,
formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the
dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social
and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and
medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and
strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be
no revolution in Nicaragua.
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a
country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a
1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary
as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba,"
particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other
countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government
began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous
acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in
October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135
killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84
Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One
year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric
Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and
counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality,
arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington.
Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be
punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded
as its air space. The U.S. also dropped bombs on the country,
killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were
other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a
major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for
being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large
tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless.
Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces,
500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the
new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources,
with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until
he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for
the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of
Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might
be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also
wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need
for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of
the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster
was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for
years and had not been at all bothered by.CIA-torture
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one
of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its
ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on
the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the
history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people,
causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil
facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched
anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure
destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this
day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by
now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's
been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s
that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will
be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and,
crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to
have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and
How many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the
1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly
backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal
rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured
billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government,
simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA
operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet
intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United
States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a
million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total
about half the population.
El Salvador, 1980-92:
El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But
with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated
electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In
1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity.
In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a
continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in
helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other
missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S.
role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in
1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted.
A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as
ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.
The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30
years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers,
and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton
White House found itself in the awkward position of having to
pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they
supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted
in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two
years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but
only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the
poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to
free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the
assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving
literally starvation wages.
The United States bombed the country back to a pre-industrial
era after exacerbating the conflict by funding and arming jihadi
fighters they had used against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The main
reason was to prevent the new nation states from coming under Russia's
sphere of influence. 5,700 civilians were murdered by NATO forces so
that the rest could be made slaves for the "trans-Atlantic alliance"
Iraq 2003- present:
Strongly promoted by the Israel lobby, the US military invaded Iraq on a
'pack of lies' to make sure no truly independent Iraq could emerge, secure
the Middle East for Israeli interests and, again, thwart Russian
interests in the area. 1.5 million civilians killed and 4 million
displaced over 10 years of brutal occupation, death squads were formed
and used under the command of US contractor James Steel. The country is still in ruins today and has been offered up to US, Israeli and Saudi-backed 'Muslim' radicals equipped with weapons left for them by the US military.
Libya Part 2 - 2011
As Muammar Gaddafi pushed forward with his plans to free many African
nations from the yolk of Western imperialism through his African union, the
US decided something had to be done to prevent the modernization of
Africa. Under the cover of the contrived 'Arab Spring' and the bogus
pretext that Gaddafi was 'bombing his own people', NATO bombed the
country for 7 months killing 15,000 civilians and reducing cities like
Sirte to rubble. Gaddafi himself was eventually thrown to the US-backed
Jihadi wolves who almost literally tore him apart. Hilary Clinton
publicly laughed at the spectacle. The result was the destruction of
Libya society and seeding of chaos that continues to this day.
Syria 2011 - present
Again under cover of the 'Arab Spring' US and Saudi paid and armed
fighters from Libya and elsewhere were sent to Syria to ignite a "civil
war" aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected President Assad
and, again, securing the Middle East for Israeli interests and shutting
out Russian influence in the Middle East.
Between December 24th 2011 and January 18th 2012, a League of Arab
States Observer Mission was in Syria comprising observers from every
single country in the Arab world. Their report cited instances of 'armed
groups' attacking both Syrian military and civilian targets, including a
bus load of people.
The CIA and other European Intelligence groups have been directly involved in training and arming the 'jihadis', including 'al-qaeda' at camps in Jordan.
Eventually this protracted Western coup attempt failed, but not before
200,000 civilians had been killed and another 4.5 million displaced.
In early 2014 the Western and Saudi-backed jihadis decamped to Iraq to
reorganise and rearm themselves for an upcoming second attack on the
Syrian government and people. This time however, the US State Dept. and
NATO has recast them as 'terrorists' and is planning to use the pretext
of wiping them out to carrying a NATO bombing campaign against Assad
directly. Many more thousands of Syrian civilians will
undoubtedly pay the ultimate price for living in a country coveted by
the Anglo-American Empire.
1 Lebensraum was an important component of Nazi ideology in
Germany. The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum
as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of
superior races to displace people of inferior races.
incisive editorials for Sott.net for 10 years and is the author of Sott.net's The Sott Report Videos.
His articles have appeared on many alternative news sites and he has
been interviewed on several internet radio shows. His articles can also
be found on his personal blog JoeQuinn.net http://www.sott.net/article/285314-Ukrainian-Role-Reversal-and-Russian-Freedom-and