If we look at the causes of the Russian-Ukrainian War from the point of view of authoritative propaganda, we will see that it is full symmetrical. NATO propaganda speaks of the innate Russian expansionism, while Russian propaganda speaks of the siege and constant diversion of the West.
However, with this tendency to symmetry, it is hard not to mention among nonsubjective factors specified as the Crimean issue in general and Sevastopol in particular. Even if we skip the growth of the historical traditions of this city with Russia and the USSR (the Crimean War, then the Patriotic War – this is simply a cult place), but we will take into account the strategical aspect, the assessments may change. What country on the place of Russia would allow, even at the top cost, an American fleet to be stationed in this port, with all historical and political conditions. The curving of Western patrons of Ukraine in this substance is unique. They represent themselves as alleged guarantors of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Meanwhile, all NATO countries know very well that the Russian-Ukrainian agreement (without reflection on the subsequent effects) defines the position of Sevastopol as a possible trigger for conflict. Russian Sevastopol, formally Ukrainian, was like a boil. In December 2013, during the visit Viktor Yanukovych in Beijing, Wang Jing signed with Ukrainian Kyjiwhydroinvest an agreement to build a deep sea port in Sevastopol with an estimated USD 10 billion. However, the task interrupted the Russian takeover of Crimea.
According to Kremlovian officials and publicists, the full guilt of exacerbating the conflict in Ukraine lies on the side of the United States. If not for the intrigues of their politicians, then the Russians and Ukrainians, as fellow nations of the common past, would be able to make peace. While any economic, political and ideological aspects of this conflict are deliberately distorted, silenced or underestimated. On 12 July 2021 the President's article was published Vladimir PutinThe historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Putin, having his hidden goals, wrote that the Russians and Ukrainians are 1 nation, which is most likely hard to consider an incitement to war. But Ukraine was converted to Anti-Russia by the West. It can be assumed on the basis of this speech that Russia is not fighting the Ukrainian people, but the West. As part of this Russian narrative, it can be assumed that this is simply a civilian war and that no 1 should interfere with it.
However, Putin's speech did not mention that in 2012 Ukraine's exclusive maritime economical region in the Black Sea was discovered rich natural gas reserves, that there were about 2 trillion cubic meters of gas there. Natural gas has besides been detected on Donbasa, and the technological revolution in extraction would let the exploitation of these deposits. Ukraine, as having no adequate technology and capital, was incapable to usage the discovered deposits on its own. Shell and ExxonMobil corp made a deal with the Ukrainian government and obtained a mining license, and it was only a substance of time before these major companies started selling cheaper gas from places closer to European markets.. They'd make money, not Russian Gazprom. specified unitary causes of war are highlighted among others in Poland. Even if it had any effect on the outbreak of war, 1 cannot reject the view that Russia might have gotten along with Shell and ExxonMobil due to the fact that they had extended interests in her territory at the same time. However, the problem was the Ukrainians limiting and blocking Russian capital in access to investment.
In the area of Donbass, Azova and Mariupola there are deposits of uncommon earths, essential for electronics and the weapons industry. Ukraine besides had technological and financial limitations, which caused very fewer deposits documented there to be exploited and processed. The European Union has created a strategical partnership together with Ukraine, where technologies were introduced, as well as backing for the acquisition of these critical natural materials for the European Union. This may be 1 of the reasons that explains the European Union's commitment to Ukraine's conflict. It's understandable that if individual wants to make a good deal, they don't run around with this message screaming out loud, just like individual wants to interrupt someone's business...
Against the Kremlin's propaganda, already in the early 2000s Ukraine was indeed not a "brother" and an ally state, but it is now forgotten. The contradictions in its territory between Russian, Ukrainian, American, Western European and even Turkish and Chinese capital were besides clear. 1 of the biggest corporations active in the production and repair of aircraft turbine engines for aircraft and helicopters, as well as industrial gas turbine installations, is simply a large example of this. In 2017, the company employed 27,320 employees. Following the crisis of transformation and failure of the Russian market, Chinese capital was active in the modernisation of the corporation. In China, a plant was to be built to repair engines manufactured in Motor-Sicz, allowing China to take over the production technology of these engines and a large part of experienced personnel. Under force from the Americans, China did not take over a majority stake, the company was nationalized in March 2021 as engines in it could be utilized by China and Russia to produce maneuvering missiles. The Motor-Sich mill in Zaporozh was destroyed by Russian forces in late May 2022. Viacheslav Boguslayev, known for his pro-Russian views, the owner of the Ukrainian Motor-Sicz group, on October 22, 2022 was detained by peculiar services as suspected of treason...
It was these contradictions, as well as those related to the deindustrialisation and privatisation of the economy and social policy, fueled by authoritative propaganda that poisoned relations between nations and forced Ukrainian capital to appeal to neofascist ideology glorifying Stepan Bandera.
It seems that erstwhile we talk about the sins of the Ukrainian establishment on the issue of the bander's legacy, there is simply a certain request for consideration of subtlety: or to what degree was it a manifestation and consequence of bad intentions, bad will, or (and to what extent) was it a kind of alleged social trap? due to the fact that if the Ukrainian elite condemned and put it to the lame of the CNS and the UPA, would they have anything to fill this gap? The mythology of the goat might not be adequate for that. So what ideological structure can be justified by the separateness and the unique identity of the Ukrainian people? What events, social movements, large changes have established Ukrainianity as a cultural and national entity? What are the founders' names? Ukrainian leaders found no another effective way to counter the Polish paternalism, as well as for the large-Russian claims that Russia (car or only Soviet) created Ukraine that it was the creation (and as a nation, and as a state) of artificial. All the more reason they did not make a historical communicative effectively opposed to the Russian command of the Kiev Rusi. There are no examples of imprudent or vague explanations as to how from the same trunk (the ancient lingua franca) grew 3 languages, or that Kiev, to which the majority of the inhabitants talk Russian today, is the cradle of Ukrainianism. Here we have a superb historical paradox that only Putin's intervention prevailed for Ukrainian self-identification even among Russian-speaking citizens of the Ukrainian state, as Napoleon's invasion decided to unite the German people.
Nor should it be lost sight that recourse to reactionary ideological traditions, various fundamentalist spiritual movements, to terrorism, is simply a constant practice of American diversion institutions. The Ukrainian political elite, this Western-oriented one, was about shaping a fresh national identity that had to be falsified, just as the identity of all nation, torn apart by antagonistic socio-economic contradictions, is falsified. In antagonistic society, nonsubjective fact is lower than business.
A very interesting view on the war in Ukraine Robert Kennedy Jr.. In his opinion, the causes of the war are not related to Russian-Ukrainian relations, but to Russian-American relations. erstwhile the General was asked Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense, why the US fights in Ukraine, this 1 replied that “Our goal is to exhaust the Russian army and weaken its ability to fight at another point on earthIt’s okay. ” So this was not what the US authorities were making public. And erstwhile Joe Bidena They asked about the war in Ukraine, he replied that "Our goal is to change the government in RussiaIt’s okay. ” Ukraine's problem has nothing to do here, Ukraine is simply a proxy-partaker of the war between the 2 powers.
Against the background of these search for the causes of the war in Ukraine is highly honest and interesting published by George Friedman in 2011 book entitled Next Decade. Where we were and where we were going. Friedman was an advisor to many American elder military commanders. In 1996, he founded a private organization dealing with intelligence and forecasting – Stratfor, which makes regular reports about the full world. In his book, he presented a forecast for the improvement of threats to the US.
Friedman admitted openly in 2011 that after the collapse of the russian Union, the United States had become the only empire and that in the coming decade it should be sought to keep this position. However, being an empire carries with it the threats to the democratic republic that the United States considered to be.
The effectiveness of the United States defence Friedman saw in a constitutional position the office of President, whose political decisions could affect the full world. With mention to the advice received from the sovereign, “the president may order an invasion, embargo or sanction. And he frequently resorts to these measures. His economical policies affect the lives of billions of people, possibly for many generations. In the next decade, what the president will be and what he or she will decide will have a greater impact on the lives of people in countries another than the actions of their governments." In Friedman's opinion, according to the American constitution, if we ignore the sovereign, the power of the presidents within the country is limited only by legislature and the ultimate Court. In the conduct of global politics, presidents have their hands untied. ‘In practice, this means that they can destruct an incorruptible state or reward others at their discretion’. present everyone knows it, but in 2011 fewer people thought about it – it seemed that the planet was going “for the better”...
Friedman declared himself a sincere supporter of justice. In his analysis of the function of the empire, however, he proposed a somewhat different view of the problem of justice. He did not mean any abstract justice, which is the consequence of philosophical discussions, nor a power based on justice and truth, but vice versa, justice from the point of view of the interests of the empire, which is the United States (in the general sense). He wrote that this imperial “justice springs out of power, and power is possible only through certain ruthlessness, for many of us being unacceptable.”
Friedman, referring to the decades before 2011, wrote that the slogans of justice, democracy and human rights were only a screen for large-scale armed operations, carried out against contenders to regional hegemony. While limiting the will of "regional" sovereigns was done in "white gloves". The predominance of the empire was so large that as a consequence of hybrid efforts, the United States: “They crushed possible regional hegemons even without having to break up their army and the actual business of the country. From a military point of view, the American interventions of the last decade of the 20th century were harassing attacks, calculated to make chaos in a state that aspired to dominate the region. alternatively of seeking external expansion, a tiny country had to prevent interior difficulties, and this in addition on the principles imposed by America. He lost in 1 effort the chance to strengthen his own power and part of sovereignty." The current disaster was only part of the right disaster, taking distant the “part of sovereignty” for the future. So, as you say, kill 2 hares with 1 shot...
The values that the United States is trying to advance and export to another countries are always related to their interests. Businesses are so the essence of everything that Americans say about values, freedom of speech, democracy, equality, sovereignty, human rights, and the rights of nations. In admitting this, Friedman stated that: “For many years, the main nonsubjective of American abroad policy has been to prevent the integration of Russia's natural materials and labour force with method advancement in Europe.It’s okay. ” After Germany had to aid Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece overcome the 2008 crisis so that the euro-based settlement strategy did not collapse, Germany understood that ‘they have more common interests with Russia than with their European neighbours’. Therefore, in 2011, Friedman predicted that 1 of the main tasks of the United States in this region to keep its hegemony should be to do everything to "block the settlement between Germany and Russia“ To do so, ” she said, “it will be necessary.Review of contacts with Poland, the geographical key to the region".
If we are talking about the interests of the United States, of course we are making any generalization here, due to the fact that the problem is whose interests in the United States, what social class and what group of capital are carried out through a given policy. We see that the policy of "division and rule" in the actions of the president and the United States did not, according to Friedman, have anything to do with the officially proclaimed "values" and sovereignty of the people, but was simply a means of achieving the goals sanctified by their powerful interests and interests of American corporations.
Not by chance after the president of the United States. Donald Tramp in Poland, from 31 August to 2 September 2019, immediately after his departure from Poland, the Government of Law and Justice made a request for Germany to pay reparations granted to Poland after the end of planet War II, most likely with fair interest for delay, although Poland resigned from them many years ago, and there was no adequate legal basis. Nevertheless, due to the support of specified a strong ally as the United States, seeking to weaken Germany, the problem is being raised in government propaganda with increasingly fresh power. Friedman saw the difficulty only in maintaining the “unity” of American society and convincing them that “American abroad policy and American values perfectly overlap”. As you can imagine, the U.S. policy with values has small in common...
Thanks to the function of the dollar and controlling the global settlement system, The United States could become the world's largest debtor and to charge any of their liabilities they could always "print" any dollars without cover. The position of their economy, as well as the strength and omnipresence of their armies, made them hold the ability to influence global and national developments. The U.S. Army reacted immediately erstwhile individual tried to break out of the influences imposed on it by economical or political disadvantages. From 1947 to 1997, the CIA overturned 83 governments – almost all 3rd government in the world.
China became the largest creditor of the United States, and this has made them curious so far in cooperation with the US and the stableness of the US dollar. However, this does not give China, despite being the largest creditor, the ability to influence US policies or control the world's situation.
Each of Friedman's esteemed presidents "created a network of illusions that enabled him to do what he needed to do without causing a widespread rebellion of society." The president had to “learn to manage the hostility of the world.” At the same time, “he must not believe in his own rhetoric.” The president had to form the atmosphere of fear, as the Church has done for centuries utilizing hell and the devil; “it must gradually get the citizens utilized to the thought that the threat will never decrease, for that is the price that Americans pay for wealth and power. This strategy can be planned and implemented, not necessarily by admitting it." specified extended tasks put forward by Friedman before the president require his tremendous influence on the functioning of the mass media, and this calls into question the universally proclaimed rule of the sovereignty of the people, pluralism and freedom of the American press. The Americans want to teach another nations of democracy, and democracy itself in the same sense as in Western Europe does not have... have “democracy” of financial oligarchy, only that without the people...
As far as Poland and another EU countries are concerned, Friedman recommended on a premeditated basis: "to confuse the leads so as not to make anxiety between Russia and Germany, as this would consequence in closer ties between these countries“Convince Poland and another countries that they take their interests seriously”. For this it is essential “to survey Ronald Reagan's deficiency of refinement and the dry dishonesty of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The president should pretend to be not very smart and be able to lie convincingly, there is no request for allies but possible enemies.” In fact, however, it has been different – since the collapse of the russian Union, the United States of America considers Central and east Europe a region of its influence. "Despite the mood, Russia's increasing presence in the east of Europe threatens American interests." It was hilarious how any of the U.S. media made Joe Biden a good-natured old man with a bad memory, as if it had any effect on the functioning of the state. With specified a president, of course, you can justify and then revoke any decision, but the state will surely not change its goals and will not cease to function due to the deficiency of memory of 1 man...
According to Friedman, the president should have utilized human sentiments in his politics, identified the main enemies and formed coalitions to fight them, “through which another countries will take on the burden of confrontation or conflict. These countries should be supported, guaranteeing them economical benefits, through military technology and promises of armed intervention, if necessary. [...] Military intervention should only be considered as a last resort, erstwhile the balance of forces breaks down and allies neglect to deal with the problem.” In view of this message by Friedman, it can be concluded that according to this scenario, the U.S. game against Russia was conducted with the aid of Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania and another countries of Middle-Eastern Europe.
Friedman's proposals are an expression of the interests of the most expansive financial and industrial capital groups in the USA and large Britain, companies active in the extraction of energy and industrial natural materials and their most aggressive military-industrial complex. Capital, defending itself against a declining profit rate, chases around the planet in search of cheaper natural materials and lower-paid labour, and this means that the debate on democracy eliminates the social-economic demands of the working masses, that the way to cheaper natural materials and labour of the American empire paves itself with fraud, and erstwhile that is not adequate – armedly, and preferably with another people's hands. Friedman calls it a pragmatic policy, adapted to modern conditions and refers to conventional "American values" to the confusion of the reader-elector.
Companies with limited liability of their owners happen not only in the US, but practically everywhere in the world, and in us too. These companies aim to rise funds and direct them into risky investment ventures that are hard to get bank loans and to make the top profits quickly. The issue of companies and capital is 1 of the most crucial issues in global economics and cannot so be overlooked.
When discussing the function of the state in the economy, Friedman wrote, among another things, what for liberals and neoliberals may dislike that the modern free marketplace is an invention of the state, as the principles according to which it functions do not come from “nature” but are “the result of political agreements”. Units that own public limited liability companies or even the state are not personally liable for their debts. ‘In this way, law and the state transfer risks from debtors to creditors. If the company collapses, the creditors are left with nothing. [...] Before that, the owner was personally liable for the company. Without this innovation, there would not have been specified a stock marketplace as we know it would have been no investment in start-ups, small entrepreneurship." Is it possible to think of something better in terms of the interests of oligarchy than not being liable for the financial failure and the transfer of work to the individual who lent her money?
Friedman continued his speech by saying that “this kind of hazard sharing is simply a political decision. There is nothing natural about defining the limits of individual risks where they are now. However, as time goes on, these boundaries shift. The company only exists due to the fact that it was created by the law. specified a political decision means that the limits of hazard and work are defined by law applicable to companies alternatively than by law of nature.’
At a time of globalisation, this work becomes global and global. The U.S. neoliberal state so acts as a guardian of the interests of American capital, which is mostly based on joint stock companies, and which is the most aggressive 1 that Friedman sees, among another things, in ‘carrying hazard from debtors to creditors’, leaving ‘believers with nothing’, ‘delimiting individual risks’. The administration of U.S. presidents promotes the "free market" by developing the securities marketplace on an unprecedented scale, so it spreads any illusion, and in fact created only a beneficial government for the activities of American corporations, which thus hold a dominant position in the world. The savings of the average citizen only supply first capital for companies and support their functioning, after which after any time they are permanently absorbed by them, leaving a tiny part of "nothing" ... Capitals from all over the world, in exchange for “value papers”, flow an uninterrupted stream to the United States and feed their economy...
Oligarchy in Poland, and not only here, is eager to usage abroad “scientific authority”, “pure science”, think-tank views, paid by the oligarchy itself, as well as NGOs, paid from state budgets. Thus, 1 quote from Lenin may callback how it all worked years ago: “The teaching of Marx awakens a world-wide civilised tremendous hostility and hatred of all bourgeois (and authoritative and liberal) science, which sees Marxism as a “harmful sect”. Another relation cannot be expected due to the fact that there is no area for “unbiased” discipline about society in a class-based society. All authoritative and liberal discipline defends anyway the slavery of a mercenary, while Marxism declared to this slavery a ruthless struggle. Expecting an impartial learning in the mercenary society of slavery – it is as foolish naive as expecting the impartiality of the factorymen in whether or not the wage should be increased for workers at the expense of profit of capital."
In modern times it has become even worse thanks to the improvement of electronics, it is adequate to mention the request to destruct capitalist property, in order to be immediately cast by the trolls by the proverbial "muck", subjected to ostracism, or to be unworthy of the word "real Pole and patriot" ...
Dr Edward Karolczuk
photo public domain
Think Poland, No. 39-40 (27.09-1.10.2023)
