By Gene Ogorodov
Recent
events have forced The Boston Pine Flag to
focus more on Ukraine than would seem justifiable in comparison to
the lack of commentary on the other major events of the few years.
The civil unrest and nascent civil war in Ukraine qua war hardly
compares with the human suffering produced by the Syrian Civil War.
The underhanded machinations and state backed terrorism of the United
States directed at Iran coupled with its flagrant mendacity about its
actions make the shameless actions towards Ukraine and Russia seem
legal and honest. However, one should not compare and contrast these
three political stages as different crimes of the Evil Empire. They
are part of the same objective--to destroy the resurgent power of the
Russian Federation before China is prepared to compete for
thalassocracy in the Pacific.
The unofficial arms
race in the Pacific between the US and China can only imply one
thing, viz. Washington sees its absolute sway over the Far East as
having come to an end. With 10% growth for the last twenty or thirty
years China been transformed from a giant sweatshop churning out vast
quantities of cheap consumer goods for American and European markets
into the only contender against the US on the world stage. The Bush
Doctrine very clearly outlined that Washington believes that China
and India are the only strategic competitors for the US, and thus the
United States has for the last decade and will continue for the
foreseeable future try to thwart China's continued rise.
Where does Russia
come into this? Russia, like Iran and North Korea, is a country
independent from American suzerainty. However, unlike Iran and North
Korea, Russia is a Great Power capable of framing its own policy with
significant diplomatic capital. While Germany, France, and the United
Kingdom will stand firmly behind the United States, Russia has the
potential of siding with Beijing in opposition to American power.
This is a major threat to Washington, but it is entirely of its own
making.
During the Clinton
administration the US assumed that Russia would remain anarchic and
impotent. Thus Washington bullied and harassed Russia rather than
incorporating Russia into the Western Order. Washington would never
have been capable of directing the internal affairs of the Russian
Federation as it did in West Germany. Thus the preference Washington
has for dictating policy would have never been possible with a Russia
rebuilt with American money. Sidelining Russia was an alternative
that allowed the US to maintain the relationship it held over other
Great Powers, but one that failed miserably. Russia did not need
American money to rebuild. It did it own its own.
The Bush
administration recognized the Russia had entered a new dawn too late.
The Bush doctrine blatant states that Russia poses no significant
threat to US interests. By 2007 with the failure of the Global War on
Terror to drive the Chinese Economy away from oil dependence and a
booming Russian Economy integrated into the European system and
Russian diplomats sitting as equals with their Western European
counterparts, the US recognized that Russia had the strength to shift
the balance of power in the Middle East.
The
the US sponsored 2008 Georgian War was intended to make the Russia a
pariah state with Western Europe. This failed. One cannot exaggerate
the importance of the fine diplomacy and careful and timely use of
force by the Kremlin in averting negative repercussions for Russia,
but ultimately oil is thicker than blood. Germany had no choice but
to accept what happened to Georgia, and thus the EU had no choice but
to leave Washington to prosecute its proxy war without economic
pressure. It is important to note, that this little war was on the
brink of going nuclear. Only the personal relationship between
Vladimir Putin and George Bush averted catastrophe. One must remember
that broad US policy is not the work of a few major policy makers it
is derived from complicated and byzantine relationships between major
special interests. The single greatest force in Washington is
inertia.
Since the Georgian
War the US and Russia have measured their diplomatic skills against
each other in every major international arena and crisis. Mostly
Russia has had the upper hand, but not exclusively. The failure of
Russia to prevent NATO from murdering Gaddafi is an excellent example
of an American win. These incessant diplomatic confrontations came to
a head with the Syrian Civil War, where Washington hoped to destroy
Russia's international influence by toppling Bashir al-Assad.
Removing a Russian ally several hundred miles away from Russia's
borders in direct opposition to the stated interests of Moscow would
have decisively ended Russia's resurgence power in international
affairs by proving that it was hollow.
Washington failed
to remove Assad or lead in the planing of a viable peace. This
coupled with the negative repressions from the Iraq War and other
minor failures in the Middle East have significantly tarnished
American power in the Middle East. Since American finance has
depended upon the Petro-Dollar for the last four decades, losing
control over the Middle East would be a catastrophe for the US. Thus
a favorable outcome of the minor proxy war in Syria had become the
most important political objective for the United States this decade.
The US could not accept the 2013 status quo, and certainly this
country would have been tempted to alter conditions in Syria by
applying pressure elsewhere.
The Crisis in
Ukraine may have begun as a means of diverting Russian attention away
from Syria, thus allowing the US to finish off Assad and re-assert
its power in the Middle East, at the expense of Russia and Iran. The
drive for American intervention in Syria earlier this year supports
this hypothesis. Nonetheless, the fall of Homs and the frigid
relationship between Israel and the US suggests that Washington
missed its opportunity. Whether that missed opportunity was a
byproduct of a pause for the Presidential Election or backlash from
America's failure in Iraq, I will not speculate. Suffice it to say
that if the US had had a freehand to remove Assad it would have done
so.
Prima facie, the
United States destabilizing Ukraine is a more direct challenge to
Russia than fighting a proxy war with Russia in Syria; however,
Ukraine has been a very tumultuous country since the collapse of the
Soviet Union. The US has interfered in the internal affairs of
Ukraine multiple times without harming the global standing of the
Russian Federation. Even the Orange Revolution did nothing to reduce
Russia's power in Europe, or Ukraine, for that matter. Moderation has
always been an essential part of American covert operations in
Ukraine. To push too hard risks hot war or even nuclear war between
the US and Russia. So, frankly, Syria offered more flexibility for
American intrigues than Ukraine.
However, with the
illegitimate government in Kiev committing one atrocity after another
against Russian Speakers the situation is rapidly getting out of
control. With anti-Kiev protesters burned alive in Odessa and Armored
Vehicles shooting civilians in Mariupol civil war is inevitable.
Russia cannot allow Ukraine to deteriorate the way Syria has in its
civil war. If military force is the only way to stabilize Ukraine
Russia will send its military across the border. A Russian invasion
of Eastern Ukraine will give NATO a justification for sending its
forces into Western Ukraine.
The Kremlin will do
everything possible to avoid military action, but if the West, in
particular the United States, persists in backing Kiev as it
escalates tensions. War between Russia and NATO is an absolute
certainty. We may only guess if this is accidental or intentional,
but whatever it is the United States has once again dragged the world
to the brink of thermonuclear war.
