The D-Word and Russia's foreign policy

The external policy followed by Russia is based upon dialogue, debate and discussion, while in contrast that which is apparently the mainstay of western policy is puerile, partisan and petulant, behaviour more befitting of a grade school playground than the international arena. The D-word, one which is not in their vocabulary, is Diplomacy.

When people are in a position of power to make decisions, with this position comes responsibility yet the foreign policy pursued by the west is ever-more irresponsible and dangerous, pandering to the whims of the business community which gravitates around the corridors where decisions are made.

This is not diplomacy, it is skulduggery, involving a cynical manipulation of people and events, resulting in murderous policies of intrusion into the internal affairs of sovereign States, wars based upon fabrications of the truth or barefaced lies and recently, humanitarian terrorism.

The approach is as sinister as it is ingenious. First the target is identified by the business lobby which controls policy and in whose pocket the policy-maker resides (close to NATO, and the nearer one gets to the epicentre of the FUKUS Axis - France-UK-US - the closer). The target will be a strategically important powerful nation with porous borders, a powerless nation with resources and certainly, one that has been convinced to destroy its WMD. A coward does not attack those who have the capacity to fight back.

Secondly, an internal figure with a potential support base is identified inside the target state, even if he or she is a murderer with a proven record. This figure is corrupted over time, in numerous meetings with FUKUS Axis figures/agencies, has access to joint bank accounts with French, British or American political figures or entities from the security services and is manoeuvred into place.

Thirdly, a colour is chosen for the country where the humanitarian terrorist strike is to take place: orange, violet, green, white while at the same time the "Opposition" is shaped, be this a mob paid to shout slogans in the streets while photographic images in the media are manipulated, or else as we saw/see in Libya and Syria, marauding gangs of murderers, terrorists, rapists, racists, arsonists, thieves, looters...

And finally, the colour revolution is launched. UN Resolutions are stretched to breaking point or simply breached, lies are told to the fellow members of the world community in an "act now, we'll fill you in on the details later" policy after a false flag attack is made in a mail-order massacre. This is humanitarian terrorism, creating a casus belli where none existed. It matters not who the victims are. The more children, the better because of the effect on public opinion and images of screaming kids in hospitals provide a carte blanche for the worst type of atrocities preceding or to follow.

This is not diplomacy - it is following self-interests and turning vested interests into assets and that is anti-diplomatic, it is criminal and it is fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, we have, thankfully, a counterweight provided more and more by the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, with at least the moral support of the BRICs even if the carrot and stick continue to hold too much sway over Brasilia and New Delhi.

This counterweight respects the norms and customs of Diplomacy, following the principles established under the agreements signed, following an approach based upon debate, dialogue and discussion, inviting all the players to the same round table to find a global solution involving all the parties. What a contrast it is to the petulant, puerile and partisan approach favoured by the FUKUS Axis in particular and by the West in general, adopting a position of exclusion of parts, more befitting a grade school playground than the international stage.

The problem is that to get into the corridors of power in western countries, you have to play the game and that game means you do not speak to HAMAS, you do not speak to Iran and you do not speak to those you have isolated through interference and who your Foreign Affairs Ministers have claimed "have to go".

Ladies and gentlemen, this approach is dangerous and it has all the hallmarks of following an inexorable path towards war. Nobody wants that, now, do they? And is it not by now crystal clear who is right and who is in the wrong?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru