Et klassisk stykke Joe Biden har gået endnu en rundgang på de sociale medier, nemlig da han til et Council on Foreign Relations seminar, pralede med, hvorledes han havde fået undersøgelsesdommeren fyret. Han havde ligeud sagt til den daværende ukrainske præsident, at hvis ikke han fyrede undersøgelsesdommeren, ville Biden ikke give Ukraine, den aftalte mia. støtte dollars. Søreme så, fyringen faldt inden Biden tog flyveren hjem et par timer senere.
Trumpister som jeg, har altid slået på den udlægning af historien og så det ironiske i, at Demokraterne forsøgte at stille Trump for en rigsret, fordi de mente, at han brugte Ukraine-støtte som magtmiddel. Og det har altid skuret lidt for mig, at det netop var der, Oberstløjtnant Vindmann valgte at beskytte “the interagency consensus”, agenturernes måde at køre biksen på, ‘deres særlige gænge’ eller som man siger på Sicilien; Cosa Nostra. For Demokraterne vil hele tiden tørre alt vedrørende Rusland af på Trump – en projektion, som Tucker Carlson observerede.
At The Interagency Consensus, det mest direkte udtryk for den overlejrede magt, Deep State, slog alarm da det drejede sig om Ukraine, er een spekulation; en anden er at Demokraterne valgte netop den slagmark, som deres andet forsøg på at rejse en Rigsret imod Trump. Det første skulle have været resultatet af Mueller Rapporten, der skuffede ved sit mangel på indhold.
Trump talte med Zelensky om to overordnede emner. Det ene var godkendelsen af leveringen af håndbårne anti-panser raketter, der ville styrke Ukraines forsvarsevne overfor en eventuel russisk invasion. Det andet var Joe og Hunter Bidens korruption. Demokraterne beskrev det, som at Trump forsøgte at presse Zelinski til at ‘grave smuds op på Biden’ ved ellers at nægte ham, de lovede våben. Men Trump og Zelenski talte om en konkret mistanke, de begge havde. “What they did, it sounds terrible to me!” sagde Trump og Zelinsky var enig.
I was very carefull about bringing any impeachment forward. But when the president made that phonecall in terms of Ukraine, there was no choice, we had no choice, he must be impeached.
Det forklarede Nańcy Pelosi, der dengang var Forkvinde for Kongressen. Men dengang vidste hun end ikke, hvad der præcist var sagt i den samtale. Da den Demokratiske Repræsentant Adam Schiff læste sin egen ‘satiriske’ gendigtning, hvad Trump egentlig mente med sine ord til Zelinsky, op i Kongressen, troede Pelosi, at det rent faktisk var Trumps egne ord.
Men der er en anden lære man kan drage af Joe Bidens fortælling om nok en gang han var en hård negl. Nemlig at Ukraine er USAs lydstat. Biden fortæller, at den ukrainske præsident protesterer over at skulle fyre en statsanklager, fordi det ligger uden for hans magt. Men Biden insisterer ved at true Ukraine på økonomien og den ukrainske præsident bøjer sig.
Alle i rummet, amerikanere såvel som ukrainere, må have vidst, at det ikke var på vegne af USAs interesser, Biden ville have statsanklageren fyret. At Biden brugte USA til at mele sin egen kage. Alligevel lystrede den ukrainske præsident, fordi Ukraine er så kontrolleret af USA, at han ikke kan undslå sig den amerikanske præsidents ublu korruption. Så ublu er Biden, at han kan stå i Ukraine og direkte fortælle om sin korruption i Ukraine(!) til den ukrainske præsident og beordre ham til at forhindre, at Biden blev sat i bekneb på den konto. Og den ukrainske præsident havde end ikke magt nok til at bruge sin viden som en klemme på Biden (‘du ved hvad jeg gjorde sidste sommer – og du kan ikke gøre en skid ved det’). Hvor meget mere vil Ukraine så ikke gøre, hvis det er USA, den allierede og hele grundlaget for deres økonomi, der vil have noget gennemført.
Når USA siger hop, spørger Ukraine hvor højt.
“No country in the world allows this kind of threat — a proxy terror army, in this instance — to operate on its border without action.” skrev David Harsanyi med henvisning til at det var utåleligt for Israel at leve med terrorgruppen Hamas som sin nabo. Den ukrainske hær er ikke en terrorgruppe, men den er i hænderne på en supermagt, der demonstrerer fjendtlighed overfor Rusland. Putin erklærede på invasionsdagen Ukraine for “a colony with a puppet regime”, som Robert H Wade mindede om for godt et år siden. Og dukkeføreren ville af med Putins regime og bryde Rusland op i mindre dele.
On 26 March, President Biden, speaking in Warsaw, said, unscripted: “For God’s sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power.” Such an overt statement of intention for regime change in Russia has not gone down well in most of Europe. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken later clarified Biden’s Warsaw remark: “As you know, and as you have heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia, or anywhere else, for that matter”. Blinken has apparently forgotten Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, and quite a few more.
Consider the following quotes. On 24 February, during a White House press conference on the first day of Russia’s invasion, Biden said sanctions are designed not to prevent invasion but to punish Russia after invading “…so the people of Russia know what he has brought on them. That is what this is all about.”
On 27 February, James Heappey, UK Minister for the Armed Forces, wrote in the Daily Telegraph: “His failure must be complete; Ukrainian sovereignty must be restored, and the Russian people empowered to see how little he cares for them. In showing them that, Putin’s days as President will surely be numbered… He’ll lose power and he won’t get to choose his successor.” Finally, on 1 March, Boris Johnson’s spokesperson said the sanctions on Russia “we are introducing, that large parts of the world are introducing, are to bring down the Putin regime.”
These statements reflect long-standing US strategy for regime change in Moscow, with Ukraine as the pivot. On one hand, send sufficient military and other equipment to Ukraine to sink the Russian military in a quagmire. On the other hand, impose severe, far-reaching sanctions on Russia so as to cause major disruption to the Russian elite and a major contraction of living conditions for the Russian middle-class. The combination should last long enough for Russians to rise up to overthrow Putin and install a Yeltsin-like President more sympathetic to the West.
USAs ønske er at skabe et amerikansk hegemoni, der går ud over den Vestlige Halvkugle de siden Monroe Doktrinen har erklæret som deres suveræne interessesfære. Men ligesom USA ikke tåler andre stormagter i sin nærhed, da det konstituerer en sikkerhedstrussel, tolererer andre stormagter heller ikke USA og hinanden i deres nærhed. Det er realpolitik, efter den gamle Bismarck, der skulle have sagt at stater ingen venner har, kun interesser (‘Tysklands ulykke er, at det er for lille til at dominerer Europa, men for stort til ikke at gøre et forsøg’).
The US strategy for regime change in Moscow has been long in preparation. In 2013 (before Ukraine’s President Yanukovych was overthrown in 2014) , Carl Gershman, Director of National Endowment for Democracy (NED), wrote: “Ukraine is the biggest prize.” He explained that if it could be pulled away from Russia and into the West, “Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”
This larger strategy for containing Russia is the context to understand the expansion of Nato members all along Russia’s borders, from the Baltics to Bulgaria, and the presence of 30,000 Nato-designated troops. It also helps understand the US and some other western states’ military intervention to overthrow Syria’s ruler, Bashar al-Assad, Russia’s ally, as well as the policy of encouraging US NGOs to foment unrest in Russia.
Since 2015 the CIA has been overseeing a secret intensive training programme in the US for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel. On 13 January, it was reported that the CIA-trained forces “could soon play a critical role on Ukraine’s eastern border, where Russian troops have massed in what many fear is preparation for an invasion.” A former CIA official explained, “The United States is training an insurgency.” It is no surprise that Moscow has long read US and Nato actions as being deeply hostile and intended to produce “regime change” in the Kremlin.
The countdown to Russia’s invasion
In 2014 the democratically elected president Yanukovych – explicitly friendly to both the EU and to Moscow – was overthrown in a coup (with substantial US backing). On 23 February, the day after Yanukovych fled, the first act of the Ukrainian parliament was to revoke the legal status of Russian as a national language; and more broadly, to prevent regions from allowing the use of any other language than Ukrainian. The government set about blocking access to Russian news, TV channels and radio. All through the next months, the government, the broadcast media and large sections of the population chanted the motto “One Nation, One Language, One People”.
These were blatantly belligerent acts towards a large minority. It is easy to understand why the many millions of Russian speakers felt under envenomed siege; and why they felt emboldened by support from the powerful state on their doorstep. The fact that language legislation was then not put into law did not suddenly “make everything right again”. The efforts to marginalise Russian speakers continued.
The largely Russian speaking and Russian Orthodox believing populations of the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk voted in favour of independence from Ukraine. The government in Kyiv (mostly Ukrainian speaking and Catholic) launched a war against these provinces to crush their resistance.
Man troede i Washington, at Rusland kunne blive et eurasisk imperium, noget man mener er Putins ambition. Men hvis man brækkede Ukraine af, ville Rusland blive svækket og endnu bedre, hvis Rusland kunne trækkes ind i en krig, som USA blev det i Vietnam og Rusland blev det i Afghanistan, så ville det russiske militær blive slidt ned. Det var især præsident Carters nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver Zbigniew Brzezinskis opfattelse. Zbigniew Brzezinski er far til TV værtinden Mika Brzezinski, der sammen med Joe Scarborough præsenterer det politiske tv-magasin Morning Joe på MSNBC. Der er ingen, der som Morning Joe har dæmoniseret Trump som en russisk agent og udskammet alle, der ikke var for yderligere støtte til myrderierne i Ukraine.
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar