This long-term drive is missed by the focus on Putin – his ambition and his state of mind. The other clashing mega force is the Russian state’s ambition to constitute itself as the centre of the Eurasian polity, culture and economy. Yet what is striking about the US and the West’s response to Russia’s invasion is how forcefully the US has rallied other western states – and very importantly, western multinational corporations – to isolate a prominent G20 state and former G8 member. Presidents Putin and Xi (as well as many in the West) talk often and pleasurably of the decline of the US and the fracturing of the West, especially since the 2008 North Atlantic financial crisis. One is the US’s long-standing assertion of “primacy” or “hegemony” vis-à-vis all other states. The Ukraine crisis expresses the clash of two mega forces shaping the world order. Our “free” mainstream media has tended to stick to the narrative of a “wicked, revanchist Putin” attacking “innocent and unified Ukraine, as a first step to conquest of other parts of eastern and central Europe and restoration of the erstwhile Soviet Union”. It in no way excuses Russia’s invasion and its despicable tactics to say that the Kremlin fell into a US and Nato trap. Putin’s invasion was the required casus belli.
UKRAINIAN RUSSIAN LINGUIST OR TEACHER WASHINGTON DC INSTALL
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.īut this weapons-plus-sanctions strategy needed a cause. 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. On one hand, send sufficient military and other equipment to Ukraine to sink the Russian military in a quagmire.
These statements reflect long-standing US strategy for regime change in Moscow, with Ukraine as the pivot. 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.” 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. 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. Blinken has apparently forgotten Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, and quite a few more.Ĭonsider the following quotes. 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”. On 26 March, President Biden, speaking in Warsaw, said, unscripted: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” Such an overt statement of intention for regime change in Russia has not gone down well in most of Europe. Wade argues that while nothing can excuse Russia’s invasion, the Kremlin has effectively fallen into a trap laid by the US and Nato that is intended to bring down Putin’s regime. Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine has come at a substantial cost for Russia, with the country so far failing to achieve its military objectives and the Russian economy suffering under unprecedented western sanctions.
0 kommentar(er)
