LUC MICHEL'S
LEADERS
EDITO
FROM NOVEMBER 27, 2004
“THE
PEOPLES’ CAUSE-NEWS”, issue 9
NEW EASTERN OFFENSIVE OF NATO :
"THE UKRAINE STAKE OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM" !
The
Ukraine is at the edge of a civil war. An explosive situation prepared,
framed and organized by the American imperialism and NATO.
On
a scenario already tested in Belgrade and Tbilissi, and which failed
twice in Belarus thanks to the strong resolution of President
Lukashenko, the candidate of the
Occident, i.e. of Washington and NATO, Iouchtchenko, wrongly presented
like “pro-European” by some, which lost the elections, claims itself
victorious, on the basis of a survey carried out at the exit of the Ballot boxes
– Surveys carried out by agencies
paid by NATO – and of testimonys of the observers of the SOEC, them
so sent by the USA and NATO. And what contradicts the neutral experts,
who, them, the elections endorse. Such as for example the “British
Helsinki Human Rights Group” (BHHRG) (1).
It should be noted that the BHHRG blames the impartiality of the
“experts” of the SOEC and denounces their participation in express
pro-Western opposition, in violation of their supposed statute of
neutrality ! The official results
are disputed and a coup d'etat crawling, insurrectionary, is organized in
the street. Coup financed by NATO and framed by neofascists militants
and skinheads – the famous “students” of PORA
(2), paid, trained and framed in NATO’s
institutes. On the famous model the Serbian “OTPOR” – “Madleen
Jungen”, as call them the Serb patriots, pointing out their Yankee
mentor Madeleine Albright –, duplicated in Georgia, in Belarus and in
Ukraine with PORA.
Here
is for the reality. The only difference with the scenario of
Tbilissi of just a year ago, which
had seen the neofascist Far-right seizing the power, the patriotic and
anti-Western party lays out of a strong popular base in the working
classes (because the pro-American party is only linked to nationalist
Far-right – the nostalgic ones of
the Ukrainian fascists of 1919-50 (the
GUARDIAN reveals that the pseudo "democrats" of PORA sing old
anti-semites anthems from the years 20-40!) – and to middle-class,
as the millionaire Yulia Tymoshenko
(3), great figure of the pseudo
“opposition”, held in the United States by a blackmail following
illicit money bleaching), in particular among the minors of Dombass, able
it also to hold the street. And Russia, which finally understood that the cold war remained on the
program of Washington, which counterbalances the Western support to
the counter-revolutionaries putchists.
The
Ukrainian crisis is however read according to two antagonistic grids of
reading.
The first is that of the whores
politicians supporting America, of the media of the NATO, i.e. the American Party in Europe. One shows there Russia to be responsible
for the crisis – eternal return of the flamer which shouts with fire.
One qualifies there the far-right counter-revolution
of “revolution”. And the neofascist Far-right of “democrat”.
One can thus read in the “COURRIER INTERNATIONAL” (Paris) that the
Ukrainian city of Lviv, centers on an insurrectionary movement, “represents
the democratic tradition of the Ukraine”. Whereas it is the
traditional bastion of xenophobe nationalism and anti-semitism.
This
grid reading is anti-European, because the pro-Western candidate is all
except the “candidate of Europe” (sic).
And
Iouchtchenko, married to an American and defending the “liberal
reforms” – i.e. solding the Country abroad –, is also and especially
one of these ugly muppets of America. The Ukrainian patriots qualified
Iouchtchenko, called “Bushenko”, as a “puppet of
the Americans”.
And
the arrival of the most eminent America’S whores in Kiev, like Javier
Solana, ex secretary-General of NATO, and the old Western rascal Lech
Valesa, reveals better than long speeches the plot which is woven in
Ukraine.
The
other grille of reading, antagonist,
is that of the Eurasists or European communautarists, of the European
revolutionary Movement, the Russian Etatists who support Putin, of the
anti-imperialists. It sees in the Ukrainian crisis a new stage of the offensive of NATO in
the East, and the confirmation that the plans of the theoreticians of
the American imperialism, like Brezinski
(4), which aims at insulating Russia before
dismembering it, are more than ever of topicality.
Let
us make a digression to specify that our support goes to the
anti-Western and Eurasist program –
in particular will to unite Ukraine to Belarus and Russia in a reinforced
“Slavic Union” – of the candidate Viktor Yanukovich and not to
its person, where has its origins in the discredited political community
of Ukraine. Like all the National-Communists and national leftist forces
in Europe, we supported in the first turn the communist candidate
Simonenko, linked to the KPRF, and which defends in Ukraine thesis closest
to ours.
But
this vision of the Ukrainian crisis as an imperialist offensive is not
only any more that of the radical anti-Americanism !
The arrogance of the neo-conservative falcons and their poodles of NATO
has, since “11 September 2001”, widened indeed considerably in Europe,
like everywhere in the world, the base of the anti-American movement. And
the thesis which were only those of the KPRF of Zouganov, the Slavic
patriots, the Eurasistes or of the PCN-NCP, are spreaded today in
astonishing circles.
The
Ukrainian crisis seen as offensive of the American imperialism in the
east, it’s what Jonathan Steele affirms
in “THE GUARDIAN” (5),
the British bigest national daily, which titrates on “the postmodern
Coup d’Etat”, on “the Ukraine stake of the American
imperialism” and on “Victor Iouchtchenko, the candidate of
Washington”.
“The true enemy of the Ukraine could well be
Washington”, estimates THE GUARDIAN. “The
interference of foreign countries in elections, under cover of an
impartial support for the civil society, is the preliminary phase of the
postmodern Coup d'Etat which set up the Third World post cold war,
sponsored by the CIA (...) to accuse Russia of imperialism because it
carries an interest supported in its close States is a coarse exaggeration
(...) it is not Moscow, but the United States which made of the Ukraine a
geostrategic stake, while refusing to give up their policy of cold war
which consists in encircling Russia and Soviet republics. In
light, the Americans chose to support Iouchtchenko, not because he is the
best candidate for the Ukraine, but because he is the more Pro-American
candidate”. Steele also underlines that “we
are not in front of a romantic fight between freedom and authoritarianism.
Like his adversary, Victor Iouchtchenko was useful like Prime Minister
under the presidency of Leonid Koutchma. Perhaps under certain aspects,
Iouchtchenko would make a better president than Ianoukovitch, but it is
naive to think that it will be in the beginning a radical change in the
Ukrainian policy and economy”. Lastly, he affirms with accuracy that
the European Union should not remain passive in front of the imperialist
attitude of the United States : “the
EU must as make a public statement to affirm as there is no for the
Ukraine to integrate NATO. That would calm the legitimate anguishes of
Russia and would send at the same time a strong signal to the United
States to mean to them not to come to ignite purely European questions”.
Because,
and there too the GUARDIAN joined the
analysis which we have made for four decades, the game of the Americans is
to perpetuate the European civil wars, to poke them, support all
fragmentations, all the secessions. It is the policy of the “Kleinstaaterei”,
according to the concept developed by the German historian Frederic Grimm (6).
Because Europe divided into a multitude of small impotent states,
economically and militarily, is the guarantee of the maintenance
of the colonial domination of Washington in Europe.
One
does not say another thing in Moscow, where the
role of Russia like European power and guarantor of the independence of
Europe continues resolutely. Moscow indeed shows the Western World to
want to divide Europe. Russia, in total dissension with Washington and its
“European” lackeys on the Ukrainian political crisis, shows “certain
States” to want to divide Europe and to draw the Ukraine towards
West, of the declarations which return at the time of the USSR where the
world was divided into two blocks. The Russian Minister for the Foreign
Affairs Sergueï Lavrov criticized in front of the press “certain
European capitals” which do not want “not
to recognize the result of the (Ukrainian) election and say that the
Ukraine must be with the Westt”. “Their
declarations let think that one wishes to trace new dividing lines in
Europe”, it underlined, saying anxious attempts “at certain States to make leave the situation to Ukraine the field of
the right”. The Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, one of
the many whores of the USA, President-in-Office of the EU, had declared
that the European Union could not “accept the result” of the
Ukrainian presidential election.
For
certain analysts, of which we are, the
Ukrainian crisis showed the limits, even the illusion, of bringing
together Russia and the USA noted these last years. A bringing
together wanted by the Kremlin but which goes directly against the
expansionist aimings of NATO to Eastern Europe, in Balkans and the
Caucasus. The Ukrainian crisis proposed contradiction between
imperialist reality and the desires of peace of the Kremlin “Any
disagreement as regards foreign policy from now on is considered by Moscow
an episode in the total opposition to the West. Not like a divergence
having a concrete objective, but like a true duel: them or us”,
noted the daily newspaper on line GAZETA.RU.
This
new policy which is essential on the Kremlin, and that
certain analysts describe as “new National-Bolchevism”, mixing
Russian imperial nationalism with resurgences of the Soviet policy,
clarifies our
thesis on the mission of Russia in the movement of liberation and
unification of Europe.
The
idea of the unification of the
Eurasist forces, beyond the differences in territory, language and
religion, is not a new one. But, facing the collapse of the Soviet Union
and the negative effects of division and disagreement due to the
dissolvers of the “US global policy”, it appears to be a
means of resistance and action against America’s New World Order and
its supporters, who want to impose their law everywhere and who endanger
peoples and nations.
Since
forty years, we want to widen this discussion by giving it a geographic
dimension that is larger and more decisive. Our main point is that the
area of our action goes from Vladivostok to Reykjavik. This is why
we actively support all the Eurasian forces, that would gather the forces
of the East and of the West driven by a common national-patriotic spirit,
and participating in the common fight for the cause of our brother
peoples.
We
speak of a common fight because everywhere, from the banks of the Atlantic
to the confines of the Oussouri, the enemy is the same : Yankee new
colonialism, its “New World Order” and its military force : NATO.
Hollywood, MacDonald’s, Coca-Cola, all of the American scum is bringing
us down to a stupid world.
Our
fight is also a direct support of the pan-Russian idea.
In Western Europe, all governments, all politicians are submitted to
Washington. The time is far away when the great General De Gaulle lived.
France has joined NATO. Only
Russia, even though it has been divided since 1991, even though it has
weakened, still has the demographic, geographic and human resources to
give Europe an alternative to the “New World Order”. For Russia, just
as before when it was called the Soviet Union, is the last free and
independent country in Europe. We believe in the Russian
mission in Europe in the twenty-first century.
But,
even though we stand on this thesis for logical reasons, which are these
of all European patriots, we are
also Eurasists for ideological reasons. Because the Russian mission in
Europe is not only political ; it is social, as Nicholas Berdiaev stated: “The mission of the Russian people is to carry out social justice within
the human society, not only in Russia, but throughout the world”, he
wrote.
But
men do not live out of ideas, they also need a dream. And the heart has to
answer the brain. We are also Eurasists because we share the old dream,
always revisited since the fall of Constantinople, the
second Rome. For the Europe we
fight for, the great and free Europe, from Vladivostok to Reykjavik, will
indeed be the fourth Rome !
Facing new-Carthage like America, the European Empire can only be a new Rome. With Moscow as a capital. Why not !
LUC MICHEL
Notes :
(1)
Here is the REPORT OF THE BRITISH HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP (BHHRG) (November 24, 2004):
“The British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG) sent observers to
the second round of the presidential election in Ukraine on 21st November
2004. BHHRG monitored the election in the city and district of Kiev,
Chernigov, and Transcarpathia. Counts were observed in central Kiev and
Uzhgorod.
Contrary to the condemnations issued by the team of professional
politicians and diplomats deployed by the OSCE mainly from NATO and EU
states, the BHHRG observers did not see evidence of government-organized
fraud nor of suppression of opposition media. Improbably high votes for
Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovich, have been reported from south-eastern
Ukraine but less attention has been given to the 90% pro-Yushchenko
results declared in western Ukraine.
Although Western media widely claimed that in Ukraine the opposition was,
in effect, excluded from the broadcast media, particularly in western
Ukraine the opposite was the case. On the eve of the poll – in flagrant
violation of the law banning propaganda for candidates – a series of
so-called “social information” advertisements showing well-known pop
stars like Eurovision winner Ruslana wearing the orange symbols of Mr
Yushchenko’s candidacy and urging people to vote appeared on state
television!
Although BHHRG did not encounter blatant violations in either the first or
second rounds, the Group’s observers were alarmed by a palpable change
in the atmosphere inside the polling stations in central Ukraine in
particular. In Round 1, a relaxed and orderly mood prevailed throughout
the day. In Round 2 the situation had become slightly tense and chaotic.
In BHHRG’s observation the change in Round 2 was attributable primarily
to an overabundance of local observers, who exercised undue influence over
the process and in some instances were an intimidating factor. The vast
majority of observers in the polling stations visited were representatives
of Viktor Yushchenko.
Transparent ballot boxes meant that these observers could frequently see
how people had voted. This OSCE-approved innovation made intimidation of
voters for the more unpopular candidate in any district easier since few
supporters of the minority would wish it to be seen how they had voted.
Ukraine’s election law allows only candidates and political parties, not
non-governmental organizations, to deploy observers. However, observers
can be deployed in the guise of journalists. For example, the
Western-sponsored Committee of Voters of Ukraine (KVU) – clearly
sympathetic to the opposition – deployed observers throughout Ukraine as
“correspondents” for the organization’s newspaper, Tochka Zora. On
31st October, BHHRG did not encounter any representatives of this
newspaper anywhere, but on 21st November such journalist-observers were
highly visible in central Ukraine. In Chernigov 11/208, for example, all 6
journalist-observers represented opposition newspapers and one, for Tochka
Zora, stood very close to the ballot boxes and closely inspected how votes
were cast. Because ballot papers in Round 2 were much smaller than in
Round 1 and were not placed in envelopes before insertion into the
transparent ballot boxes, secrecy of the ballot was compromised. In this
case, the immediate impression was that a young Tochka Zora correspondent
exercised more control over the process than the election commission
chairman himself.
In Chernigov (7/208), all 7 journalist-observers represented opposition
newspapers, in some cases simply temporary campaign publications such as
the pro-Yushchenko propaganda paper Tak – his election slogan “Yes.”
In a scene exemplary of the mood of voting on 21st November, BHHRG watched
a nervous looking old woman emerge from a voting booth, approach the three
opposition observers sitting directly behind the ballot boxes, and ask:
“Have I filled out the ballot correctly?” An observer inspected the
ballot, saw it was filled in for Viktor Yushchenko, and replied:
“Yes.” The woman’s unfolded ballot was plainly visible in the
transparent ballot box.
Such groups of opposition journalist/observers were not in evidence in the
Transcarpathian region visited by BHHRG’s observers. Exit pollsters in
Mukachevo admitted to being Yushchenko supporters and were carrying out
their poll in a simplistic manner – asking every twentieth voter for
their choice without categorizing by age, class, etc. 40% of voters
refused to say how they had voted, but 80% of the remainder said that they
had backed Yushchenko. The exit polls were clearly not scientific – less
so even than the ones predicting Kerry trouncing George W. Bush in Florida
and Ohio!
In a polling station attached to Uzhgorod’s university a group of young,
male Yushenko observers hung around the entrance to the polling room and
next to the ballot box. OSCE guidelines condemn the presence of such un-authorised
personnel. The commission chairman in this polling station stated that
four members of the election commission had prevented observers for Mr.
Yushenko from fulfilling their tasks leading to the intervention of
lawyers. When this accusation was put to other members of the commission
they appeared dumb-founded and said no such incident had taken place. The
chairman appeared shocked that the BHHRG observers sought to confirm his
detailed account of the misbehaviour of some of his colleagues by asking
other witnesses, but no proper observation should accept allegations
unquestioningly.
Conclusion:
Whatever may have been the case in south-eastern Ukraine, it was clear to
this Group’s observers in central Ukraine and western Ukraine that the
opposition exercised near complete control. The broadcast media showed
bias towards Mr. Yushchenko in these areas, particularly in western
Ukraine where Mr Yanukovich was invisible – not even being shown voting
on polling day. It is naïve to think only the government had the
facilities to exercise improper influence over the polls. From what BHHRG
observed, the opposition exercised disproportionate control over the
electoral process in many places, giving rise to concerns that the
opposition – not only the authorities – may have committed violations
and may have even falsified the vote in opposition-controlled areas.
So-called “administrative resources” in places visited by BHHRG
appeared to be in the hands of the opposition, not the government, and
this may have frightened voters. After all since Sunday, police and
security personnel in some western towns have declared their loyalty to
“president” Yushchenko.
The open bias of Western governments and their nominated observers in the
OSCE delegation, some of whom have appeared on opposition platforms, makes
it unreasonable to rely on its report.
In spite of concerns, BHHRG finds no reason to believe that the final
result of the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine was not generally
representative of genuine popular will. The election featured a genuine
choice of candidates, active pre-election campaigns, and high voter
participation. It is clear that Ukrainian opinion was highly polarized.
That meant many people backing a losing candidate would find it difficult
to accept a defeat. Foreigners should not encourage civil conflict because
the candidate on whom they have lavished expensive support turned out to
be a loser.”
(2)
Good Fascists exist for our Western democrats. Our journalists and politicians, who are always ready to cry over “rebirth of Fascism” over Le Pen or Haider, are so silent when it’s the neofascists and neonazis of the Baltic lands, Belarus or Ukraine.
This platonic antifascist, those of Searchlight, Ra’l Front (France) or RésistaceS (Belgium),
close their eyes and mouths over this reality. They show by this way that they are only muppet groups in service of the NATO States.
For those who still have doubts over the real Far-rightist, neofascist and antisemitic nature of the hooligans of PORA, read John Laughland from the British daily SPECTATOR ( November 6, 2004):
“A few years ago, a friend of mine was sent to Kiev by the British
government to teach Ukrainians about the Western democratic system. His
pupils were young reformers from western Ukraine, affiliated to the
Conservative party. When they produced a manifesto containing 15 pages of
impenetrable waffle, he gently suggested boiling their electoral message
down to one salient point. What was it, he wondered? A moment of furrowed
brows produced the lapidary and nonchalant reply, ?To expel all Jews from
our country.? It is in the west of Ukraine that support is strongest for
the man who is being vigorously promoted by America as the country?s next
president: the former prime minister Viktor Yushchenko. On a rainy Monday
morning in Kiev, I met some young Yushchenko supporters, druggy
skinheads from Lvov. They belonged both to a Western-backed youth
organisation, Pora, and also to Ukrainian National Self-Defence (Unso), a
semi-paramilitary movement whose members enjoy posing for the cameras
carrying rifles and wearing fatigues and balaclava helmets. Were nutters
like this to be politically active in any country other than Ukraine or
the Baltic states, there would be instant outcry in the US and British
media; but in former Soviet republics, such bogus nationalism is
considered anti-Russian and therefore democratic”.
(3)
Who is really Yulia Tymoshenko, the “iron lady” of the Ukrainian coup ? THE GUARDIAN
(“The millionaire revolutionary. She has been a powerful voice during this week's protests in Kiev. But who is Yulia
Tymoshenko?”, James Meek reports, November 26, 2004) has interresting answers to this question.
Excerpts : As
a woman who in the space of a few years has merely managed to become a
multi-billionaire and deputy prime minister of one of Europe’s largest
countries, however, she has remained – until recently – obscure to the
world. Throughout this week’s protests against election fraud in Kiev,
Tymoshenko has appeared at the right-hand side of the opposition leader,
Viktor Yushchenko. Arm in arm, they make a noble couple (...) But
Tymoshenko’s peasant look is somewhat misleading. She is in fact a very
wealthy woman, who gained her fortune in highly debated circumstances
before entering politics. She made the transition from a member of
Ukraine’s disliked new moneyed elite to a skilled marshal of the anger
of the public square three years ago, when she mounted an energetic, if
ultimately unsuccessful, campaign to topple the increasingly loathed
president, Leonid Kuchma. Her original entry into politics came earlier,
in the mid-1990s; but her Hromada party was seen then as only one of a
rash of factions cynically created by the new tycoons to advance their
business interests (...)
Yuri Boldyrev, a former independent MP turned political analyst, say that
she is the hardliner in the opposition leadership, the least willing to
compromise and the one most ready to push the authorities to the limit.
"She is an iron lady, a serious woman, the real force behind [Yushchenko]",
says Boldyrev (...)
But who is Tymoshenko? Is she the dedicated champion of free-market
values, Ukrainian independence and European liberal ideals she and her
supporters would claim her to be? Or is she a darker, more compromised
figure, whose own record might tarnish an opposition victory? (...)
Tymoshenko was born in 1960 in Dnipropetrovsk, one of the arsenals of
Soviet totalitarianism, a Russian-speaking eastern city in a sea of
Ukrainian-speaking villages. She trained as an economist. The city has a
political heritage, and was the power base both of Leonid Brezhnev and of
Ukraine’s president for the past 10 years, Kuchma. Kuchma first arrived
in Kiev pulling a long train of friends from Dnipropetrovsk behind him.
Tymoshenko benefited from this connection through her acquaintance with
Pavlo Lazarenko, who became Ukraine’s prime minister in 1996. Lazarenko
claimed to have a plan that would solve Ukraine’s perpetual energy
crisis – the fact that factories were not able to pay for Russian gas.
He set up a network of regional gas monopolies which supplied gas to
companies in exchange for whatever those companies had to offer: cash,
goods, or shares. One of the biggest beneficiaries of this system was a
company set up and run by Tymoshenko, United Energy System. These were
heady times for the hungry young tycoon. According to Matthew
Brzezinski’s 2001 book Casino Moscow, which devotes a chapter to
Tymoshenko entitled The Eleven Billion Dollar Woman, she was guarded by an
entire platoon of ex-Soviet special forces bodyguards. She once sent a
plane to collect Brzezinski from Moscow, fly him to Dnipropetrovsk to meet
her for lunch, and drop him off back at Moscow in the evening. When
Brzezinski said he didn’t want to tie up the company plane, Tymoshenko
said: "Don’t worry. I have four of them". According to
Brzezinski, as a result of Lazarenko’s patronage, "Tymoshenko
gained control over nearly 20% of Ukraine’s gross national product, an
enviable position that probably no other private company in the world
could boast". Her rapid rise, and her friendship with Lazarenko,
would later return to haunt her. Lazarenko fell from favour, was sacked
amid accusations of corruption in 1997, and fled Ukraine. In June this
year, he was convicted of money-laundering and extortion in California. At
first, Tymoshenko was able to distance herself from the scandal - in the
short-lived premiership of Yushchenko, she became deputy prime minister -
but as her relationship with Kuchma cooled, she became drawn into the
scandal. She was accused of having given Lazarenko kickbacks in exchange
for her company’s stranglehold on the country’s gas supplies. It is an
accusation she has always denied, although Brzezinski maintains it is
true. "The US government has evidence of wire transfers from her to
Lazarenko personally while he was PM," he told me yesterday.
Whatever the truth of the gas saga, the vast personal enrichment of
Tymoshenko when so many ordinary Ukrainians were going poor and hungry
made her unpopular in the late 1990s une”.
(4) One of the most influent theoretician of the American imperialism at the XXIth century is Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose interests are geostrategy and geopolitics and that published "The Big Chessboard" in 1997, titled "Le grand échiquier Les Etats-Unis et le reste du monde" for its French edition. Disciple of Henry Kissinger and adept of the "political realism", Brzezinski, of Polish origin, is expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington DC) and professor at the John Hopkins University at Baltimore. He counselled the president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.
The reflection of Brzezinski is centred on geopolitical conditions of the American strength and its control upon Eurasia, the "big chessboard" where Washington must eliminate all potential or real rival.
Brzezinski inspires itself directly from his theories to define conditions of the American power at the XXIth century, to maintain it in its hegemonical role of guarantors of the "New World Order" and assure the domination of the western Europe. In order to maintain their leadership, they need nothing else than the
world domination announced by Burnham in 1943, USA must master the "big chessboard" that represents Eurasia above all, where will be determined the future of the world. This mastering rests on the domination of Western Europe, closely linked to USA in a western political and economical power, the Atlantic community padlocked by the NATO. It also rests on the isolation of Russia that it is necessary to weaken irreparably and to dismember.
The deadly danger for USA, extra-European strength from the origin, would to be expelled of Western Europe, its bridgehead in Europe. For this goal, all Union between Europe and Russia, all Eurasian union, without mentioning the fusion as evoked by us in the Eighties, must be prevented by all means.
Zbigniew Brzezinski said : "Europe is the geostrategical bridgehead fundamental for America. For America, geostrategical stakes on the Eurasian continent are enormous. More precious than the relationships with the Japanese archipelago, the Atlantic alliance permits him to wield a political influence and to have a military weight directly on the continent. At this stage of the american-European relationships, the allied European nations depend on the United States for their security. If Europe would be enlarged, it would increase the direct influence of the United States automatically. On the contrary, if the transatlantic ties distended themselves, it would be the end of the pre-eminence of America in
Eurasia".
(5)
Jonathan Steele, “Ukraine’s postmodern coup d’etat. Yushchenko
got the US nod, and money flooded in to his supporters”, THE
GUARDIAN, London, November 26, 2004.
Extraits: “Oranges can often be bitter, and the mass street protests
now going on in Ukraine may not be quite as sweet as their supporters
claim. For one thing the demonstrators do not reflect nationwide
sentiments (...) Their traditions are not always pleasant. Some protesters
have been chanting nationalistic and secessionist songs from the anti-semitic
years of the second world war. Nor are we watching a struggle between
freedom and authoritarianism as is romantically alleged. Viktor Yushchenko,
who claims to have won Sunday’s election, served as prime minister under
the outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, and some of his backers are also
linked to the brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine’s
post-Soviet privatisation (...)
Countless elections in the post-Soviet space have been manipulated to a
degree which probably reversed the result, usually by unfair use of state
television, and sometimes by direct ballot rigging. Boris Yeltsin’s
constitutional referendum in Russia in 1993 and his re-election in 1996
were early cases. Azerbaijan’s presidential vote last year was also
highly suspicious. Yet after none of those polls did the Organisation for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, the main international observer body,
or the US and other western governments, make the furious noise they are
producing today. The decision to protest appears to depend mainly on
realpolitik and whether the challengers or the incumbent are considered
more “pro-western” or “pro-market”. In Ukraine, Yushchenko got the
western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups which support him,
ranging from the youth organisation, Pora, to various opposition websites.
More provocatively, the US and other western embassies paid for exit
polls, prompting Russia to do likewise, though apparently to a lesser
extent. The US’s own election this month showed how wrong exit polls can
be. But they provide a powerful mobilising effect, making it easier to
persuade people to mount civil disobedience or seize public buildings on
the grounds the election must have been stolen if the official results
diverge.
Intervening in foreign elections, under the guise of an impartial interest
in helping civil society, has become the run-up to the postmodern coup
d’etat, the CIA-sponsored third world uprising of cold war days adapted
to post-Soviet conditions. Instruments of democracy are used selectively
to topple unpopular dictators, once a successor candidate or regime has
been groomed.
In Ukraine’s case this is playing with fire. Not only is the country
geographically and culturally divided – a recipe for partition or even
civil war – it is also an important neighbour to Russia. Putin has been
clumsy, but to accuse Russia of imperialism because it shows close
interest in adjoining states and the Russian-speaking minorities who live
there is a wild exaggeration. Ukraine has been turned into a geostrategic
matter not by Moscow but by the US, which refuses to abandon its cold war
policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet
republic to its side. The EU should have none of this. Many Ukrainians
certainly want a more democratic system. Putin is not inherently against
this, however authoritarian he is in his own country. What concerns him is
instability, the threat of anti-Russian regimes on his borders, and
American mischief (...)
The EU must also make a public statement that it sees no value in Nato
membership for Ukraine, and those EU members who belong to Nato will not
support it. At a stroke this would calm Russia’s legitimate fears and
send a signal to Washington not to go on inflaming a purely European
issue”.
(6)
Divide and Reign, the "Kleinstaaterei" : The Cardinal of Richelieu was French prime minister when the Thirty years War devastated the Mittel Europa. His goal was to assure to the France of the Bourbons the domination in Europe while neutralizing Germany and the empire of the Habsbourgs, both in Spain and in Germany. Implementing a cynical and opportunist politics, Richelieu has transformed a war of religion between Protestants and Catholics in a big fire and France was victorious at the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). Under the pretext of preserving the "Germanic freedoms", France imposes the dismemberment of the Germanic Reich in several hundred of micro-states. France, unitarian state, assured its predominance in Europe until the beginning of the XIXth century. The German historian Frédéric Grimm evokes on this matter in his book "The will of Richelieu" the "Kleinstaaterei" concept.
The lesson has not been lost for the United States. Today, under the pretext of preserving the rights of peoples - the new "European" freedoms -, Washington imposes the "kleinstaaterei" in Europe, in the Balkan, the Caucasus and even in Russia. Since 1943, the United States theorize and encourage dismemberment and the big state fragmentation. In 1945, Morgenthau, that counselled Roosevelt, extolled the partition of Germany and its de-industrialization. The partition is a result of it One often ignores that Stalin was opposed to the division of Germany and proposed until 1948 a unified and neutral Germany. Here geopolitics comes closer to the current "realism" of the international relations, of which one of the most famous founders is Hans J. Morgenthau, with whom he shares number of assumptions.
Since 1989, the United States multiply their support to the bursting of States in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe. The bursting of the Soviet union and the second Yugoslavia results some directly. A new stage has see the dismemberment of the third Yugoslavia of Milosevic that has been born in 1991. And Brzezinski finally aims not only to dismemberment of the Federation of Russia but also of the historic Russia herself in three entities.
And there intervenes Huntington, with his theory of “the clash of the civilizations”, whose role is to provide some historic justifications to this politics. And to compare the geopolitics vision of Europe of Brzezinski to the theory of areas civilization of Huntington is to this illuminating topic. He agrees to make another comparison : with the thesis of the Nazi geopolitics – whose main theoretician was Alfred Rosenberg, the author of the "Myth of the XXeme Century" –. The same programme is applied in the Balkan or against Russia. And the present privileged allies of Washington were those of the IIIeme Reich between 1935 and 1944.
Nul novi sub sole …