Russia, Ukraine and NATO: Sanctions and sour grapes
It is human nature for the losing side to act with spite and perpetuate feelings of hatred for their victor, hoping for another opportunity to challenge the stronger party in the duel lost, just like any vanquished stag, bull or ram. In the case of the NATO-imposed sanctions against Russia, is this the case, or is there something far more sinister?
Western readers will have been told that Russia invaded Ukraine, shot down an aircraft and so the West has imposed sanctions as a punishment. Did they actually believe that? Probably, yes because as Homer Simpson said, "It must be true, I saw it on TV". Western audiences swallow what they are served, unquestioning and so obediently, after being fed industrial doses of nonsense to brainwash them and perpetuate the existence of the lobbies which control their governments. It is called governing through the manipulation of fear.
Rewind to last Summer, before the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, made it clear he would not sign the EU Association Agreement because he wished to safeguard Ukraine's products and jobs (the Agreement was weighed heavily in favor of the European Union).
At the same time, a fly on the wall in a closed NATO meeting heard something like the following:
A European Member: "Well he's right. Like who wants to join the European Union? You lose your industry to Germany, you lose your agriculture to France and your fishermen are paid to sit on their backsides while the Spanish fleet invades your waters. You end up with a massive debt, no production, no jobs and no future".
An American Member: "Yeah but just a minute here, we're talking big bucks. And when do the people get to decide anything anyway? They're sheeple, remember? No, we can use this to prolong the life of NATO as an organization and as a weapons dealer. Remember we sell one point two thousand billion USD-worth of military equipment every year, that's one point two trillion bucks, buddy. And folks are starting to question what NATO stands for, other than supporting terrorists in Libya and Syria, destabilizing what were prosperous and peaceful nations before we trashed them and others are saying NATO runs against the Constitutional law of most member states. So here's what we do..."
And what did they do? They stirred up internal dissent in Ukraine, a country with an extremely complex mix of peoples and cultures, progressively with a Russian culture the further East you go, but even there with mixed villages, Russian-speakers married with Ukrainian-speakers, bilingual children and so on. It was a copy-paste of OTPOR from Serbia a decade or so earlier. As a bunch of wannabe leaders, including self-styled terrorists with links to Al-Qaeda and Fascists, were prepared, infiltrators in Kiev staged a putsch in February, firing on the crowds from the floors of Hotel Kiev where the anti-Yanukovich supporters were based, then blaming the police force and President Yanukovich.
The tinder was easy to light. Yanukovich, the democratically-elected President of Ukraine, was ousted illegally without any of the constitutional conditions being met and slogans such as "Death to Russians and Jews" could be heard on the streets of Kiev as the leaders of the putsch stated openly they were going to introduce anti-Russian edicts.
NATO, behind the scenes, having lost its attempt to seize the Russian naval base in Syria, had already set eyes on Russia's naval base in Crimea and the hand-over was part of the deal.
The inhabitants of the Republic of Crimea were and are, by a vast majority, Russians, because until the 1950s, Crimea was part of Russia. Someone drew a line on a map, others made a decision and over a million people (at the time) found themselves living in another State. The legitimate Government of Ukraine having been removed illegally in February 2014, the ruling power in the Republic of Crimea is under the law its legislative assembly, which voted to hold a referendum, in which the vast majority of citizens voted to rejoin Russia. Crimea is Russia, NATO did not get its hands on the naval base. 2014: Russia 2 NATO 0. So the schoolyard bully goes crying to momma, throws his toys out the pram and says he isn't going to play with Ivan any more. NATO imposes sanctions, in the words of that Nobel Peace Prize-usurper, "To make a weak economy weaker". Nice man, that...nice man... but then again in his own words, they give the Nobel Peace Prize to anyone these days.
And the rest is history. Russia has not openly supported the anti-Kiev forces in Eastern Ukraine and has several times suggested to them that they lay down arms. They have not, because Russia does not have any direct influence in what is after all a different country. These "rebels" are Ukrainian citizens and all they wanted in the beginning was for Kiev to listen to them.
As for the downing of the aircraft, I will repeat what I said at the time. Firstly, the onus must be on respect for the victims, their families and loved ones. Secondly, there must be a proper investigation which answers all questions. What system was used, from where, and even then, who fired it and why. Was the target that aircraft? Or Narendra Modi, the Indian who has been attacked for 12 years by NATO, accused of human rights abuses against Moslems during the Hindu-Moslem riots in India, about which the history book has concentrated on the deaths of Moslems and suppressed the figures relating to the Hindus? Modi's aircraft was on the same flight path as the MH-17 and was minutes behind.
Was it Vladimir Putin's aircraft returning from Brazil, which had intersected the Mh-17's flight path? Was it a tragic accident? Only after a proper and impartial scientific investigation can any conclusion be reached. And then when the facts are presented let us also ask who and what is conducting the investigation, and where?
Recent history has taught us that the more NATO is involved, the worse the consequences are. Did Russia impose sanctions on NATO when it bombed Serbia for ninety days after helping Albanian terrorists take control of Kosovo, after these terrorists had attacked the police, after they had raped Serbian girls, after they had decapitated civilians, after they had trafficked human organs, cutting kidneys and livers out of still-living human beings?
Did Russia impose sanctions on NATO when it invaded Iraq illegally, after a decade of strafing fields of cereals with incendiary bombs, after a decade of imposing sanctions and after a decade of murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, leaving others handicapped through Depleted Uranium poisoning? Did Russia impose sanctions on NATO when it used military hardware against civilian structures, destroying a sovereign State outside the auspices of the UN Security Council?
Did Russia impose sanctions on NATO when it masterminded the most shocking, demonic human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, where detainees were raped, sodomized, had dogs set on them, had their food urinated on, where Moslems were forced to eat pork? Did Russia impose sanctions on NATO when people were arbitrarily seized from the four corners of the world, taken to the USA's torture and concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and held without accusation, trial, or any form of due legal process (where many remain today, apart from a few released because Tony Blair asked George Bush to let the Brits go)?
Did Russia impose sanctions on NATO for another breach on international law in Libya, where UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) were disregarded, where again civilian infrastructures were strafed with military hardware, in which civilians were murdered by NATO cowards flying alone in the skies, where another State was left destroyed, where the theater of war has consequences outside the battlefield, a breach of the Geneva Conventions? Did Russia impose sanctions on NATO for supporting terrorist groups in Libya on NATO's own lists of proscribed groups?
Did Russia impose sanctions on NATO when it fostered the same type of rebellion in Syria, saying "Assad must go" when most Syrians prefer Bashar al-Assad to any of the lunatics fighting against him, did Russia impose sanctions on NATO when NATO armed, equipped and trained demented terrorist forces who have raped girls, impaled boys on stakes, ripped the hearts out of victims and eaten them, hot, who have committed sodomy, have looted, pillaged and torched family homes?
So as we see, the situation in Ukraine was not of Russia's making. And if the USA and the European Union wish to impose sanctions on Russia, to hurt its economy and its people, then there cannot be one person outside NATO (and probably many inside) with an iota of respect for this supra-national organization and its leaders or policies.
Let us be honest: those who engender rancor are those who have lost. NATO wanted Russia's bases in Syria and Crimea and didn't get them. Sour grapes. Or in army speak, Tango Sierra. After the history listed here and elsewhere, NATO cannot be serious about human rights issues, now can it? And after the history listed here and elsewhere, would anyone really be surprised about how low NATO can go?