When US President Barack Obama opened his tour of Europe this week it had the unmistakable choreography of a scripted set piece: lights, camera, action etc. The storyline is a familiar trope. America, the shining beacon of democracy and human rights, comes to the rescue of European damsels in distress just before they are ravaged by bestial European recidivism for war.
Moscow does not have to “annex” or “invade” anything; it just needs to sit back, relax and watch the West manage its self-created mess. Apart from fiery NATO rhetoric and that only slightly relevant signing in Brussels last Friday, there are few indications so far the “lost in its own pivots” US and a beleaguered EU have the ability, the willingness and the necessary commitment to support the Kiev regime changers all the way.
Well over 60% of Americans and Europeans are against a New Cold War against Russia. Putin’s approval rating in Russia is around 75% – and arguably similar all across the developing world. Still, no one will lose money betting on the juvenile amateurism of the Obama administration.
We may never know who hired the snipers who handed Ukraine over to a gaggle of assorted fascists, corrupt oligarchs, and their CIA backers. Yet we don’t need receipts to figure it out. Although asking “Qui bono?” isn’t always enough to draw a conclusion in such instances, in this case it most certainly is.
And here’s an intriguing question: what did the US government – whose spies are no doubt crawling all over Ukraine – know about the mysterious snipers, and when did it know it?
By rendering democratic processes and peaceful popular reforms impossible and by overthrowing independent, democratically elected governments, Washington is making wars and violent upheavals inevitable.
The Western press is beating the war drums over the incident. But – given that that snipers are a common form of false flag terrorism – shouldn’t we wait to find out who was really behind the violence?
The figures do not add up: The Russians constitute 58 percent of Crimea’s population, yet 97 percent of the vote was in favor of joining Russia. If Ukrainians and Tatars had refused to participate in the referendum, voter participation would have been substantially less that 83.1.
The referendum was also a vote against the US-EU sponsored Coup d’etat.
In denying the Russian Federation the courtesy of allowing it to have a coherent alternative view, the US is attempting to claw back the illusion of its unquestioned supremacy, its absolute hegemony, its role as chief moralizer and arbiter of what counts as normal and abnormal in thought and behavior. Because either the world must have gone mad, or Putin must have.
Once again, Putin has made every effort to downplay his role in deciding policy so as not to embarrass the bungling Obama claque who seem determined to make themselves look foolish and impotent at every opportunity.
Obama attempted to launch two wars (Syria and Ukraine). He – lucky for him – lost both even at the “attempt” stage. Assorted neo-cons and the whole exceptionalist brigade are predictably livid. Expect the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal to go ballistic. And expect US ambassador to the UN Samantha “R2P” Power to wish she were Sinead O’Connor singing Nothing Compares to You.
The BBC says that the referendum in Crimera is disputed. But by whom? Not by the people voting. The dispute comes from the anti-democratic forces that are not voting–the Obama regime and its puppet UK government and puppet BBC ministry of propaganda.
What Washington has made completely obvious is that “self-determination” is a weapon used by Washington in behalf of its agenda. If self-determination advances Washington’s agenda, Washington is for it. If self-determination does not advance Washington’s agenda, Washington is against it.
