By Hans Vogel
The Kiev regime, installed a little over a year ago, has all the marks of a US-imposed puppet regime. Premier Yatsenyuk is clearly Washington's boy, while President Poroshenko acts as a front to confuse the outside world. It would not surprise me, however, if he were more aligned wit EU interests.
There was a time when a US-imposed local dictator could be easily recognized. We are talking fundamentally about Latin America during the first half of the 20th century. This was a period when the Washington regime could impose and depose puppets when it pleased and almost wherever it pleased. The local boys had to meet only a few requirements.
First, they needed to speak, or at least understand English. Orders were given in English, but further interaction was hardly needed, since the relationship was essentially that of master and servant. And few are the masters who would want to converse (or, God forbid, exchange points of view) with their servants. After all, familiarity breeds contempt. Through its local representative-officially called "ambassador," but routinely referred to as "proconsul" by the locals-the Washington regime intimately knew everything there was to know in each and every country where it called the shots. In case no local boy could be found with the required knowledge of English, but otherwise suited for the job, an uncritical admiration (and/or fear) of the US would do.
Secondly, local puppets needed to be either venal or susceptible to blackmail, preferably both. Actually this would often be the case, as many a dictator would have at least one expensive young mistress and was thus constantly in need of funds to support these. The US would keep sending money his way. The puppet would be both dependent on US dollars and always interested in not having too many people in his country know about his private life. Rumors could, of course, never be prevented, but there was to be as little hard evidence as possible. Wielding both a carrot and a stick, the Washington regime could thus comfortably force its stooges to do everything that was felt to be in the interest of the US.
Many little tin hat dictators were installed in Central America and the Caribbean, where US influence was strongest. For example Anastasio "Tacho" Somoza I of Nicaragua (1937-1956), Cuba's Fulgencio Batista (1940-1959), and Joaquín Balaguer in the Dominican Republic (1966-1978). In reference to Somoza I, a ruthless and cruel tyrant,FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) once remarked: "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he is OUR son of a bitch!"
Obviously, the third requirement is a willingness to do whatever the Washington regime orders. These requirements essentially boil down to two complementary ones:
1. Providing unrestricted access to the country's resources (oil, minerals, agricultural produce) to US corporations while imposing only minimal taxes and duties.
2. Keeping wages as low as possible and maintaining order and calm among the local population so as to protect US investments and other interests.
Since the late 19th century, the US has been forcibly "opening up" countries all over the globe, "making them safe for democracy" and US corporations. Don't believe the US is in any way lenient or humane. On the contrary, whoever attempts to resist the US incurs the wrath of the Washington regime and becomes a target for savage revenge. Measures may range from economic sanctions to full-scale bombing followed by military conquest. Such interventions are always justified with high-sounding ethical motives. The US media (mostly government-controlled), invariably presents these colonial conquests as "liberation." Indeed it reminds us of Roman times: each time a new conquest was made, with untold numbers of opponents killed, entire provinces laid waste, it was said that "peace" had been brought. However, what was peace for the Romans, meant death and misery for the rest of the world.
Whenever a local puppet has outlived his usefulness, whenever he believes the time has come to assert his independence, he is removed from power. Sometimes this takes an intense international propaganda campaign during which the restive puppet is portrayed as the embodiment of evil, as a "new Hitler". Generally, however, the removal of a rebellious puppet is accomplished swiftly and with precision. Thus in 1989 Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, a onetime faithful CIA-asset cooperating with Bush I when he was still director of the CIA, was kidnapped and brought before a kangaroo court in the US. As recently as 2012, Paraguay's democratically elected president, Fernando Lugo, was deposed at the behest of the Washington regime.
Currently the US is targeting Argentinian President Cristine Kirchner for removal. The first steps have already been taken with an attempt to lay the blame on her for the murder of state prosecutor Nisman, who was killed on orders of the Washington regime.
I wonder if the members of the Kiev regime have any notion of Latin American history and politics. I suspect they have not. If they would, I am sure the recent history of the Ukraine would have taken a totally different course. In this respect, another essential requirement for US puppets springs to mind: a total lack of self-respect. The members of the Kiev regime not only meet this requirement, but all the other requirements as well.
I really feel sorry for the Ukrainian people. Surely they deserve a better fate. I hear the Empire moves forward with great strides: Monsanto is buying up wide swaths of prime agricultural land, US vice-president Biden's son has full access to Ukrainian natural gas, fracking projects are underway, and average monthly wages have been reduced to under 40 Euro.
Being part of the Empire comes at a price, but you get so much in return...
The points of view of Biden and Putin do not coincide in the understanding that the relations should be built on a mutually beneficial basis and coincidence of interests