Leemos una
interesante nota de Brian Coughley para el sitio web Strategic Culture
Foundation. ¿Cuál es el sentido de la confrontación permanente entre el
gobierno de los EEUU y Rusia? Astroboy cree que hay una razón instrumental
importante: el mantenimiento de un aparato militar increíblemente costoso. Un
dato que aporta este mismo artículo es el siguiente: el presupuesto anual
combinado de la NATO (EEUU + UE) alcanza los 350 mil millones de dólares. El
presupuesto anual de defensa de Rusia es de 36 mil millones.
Título:
Washington’s Confrontation with Russia
Texto: You may
find it difficult to believe the content of a speech by US President George W
Bush in November 2001 when he met with President Putin in Texas and, among
other things, declared that «a lot of people never really dreamt that an
American president and a Russian president could have established the
friendship that we [have]».
He went on to say
that «When I was in high school, Russia was an enemy. Now the high school
students can know Russia as a friend, that we’re working together to break the
old ties, to establish a new spirit of cooperation and trust so that we can
work together to make the world more peaceful».
How sensible. How
optimistic.
But, regrettably,
how wrong. Because the United States administration, at the urging of the
Pentagon and its sub-office in Brussels, the HQ of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation, had already embarked on a policy of confrontation, encouraging
expansion of that anti-Russia military alliance from 16 to its present 28
countries.
Two years after
President Bush welcomed President Putin to Texas, NATO welcomed eight more
nations as members, increasing its military presence ever-closer to Russia’s
border.
President GW Bush
was not the most intellectually gifted occupant of the White House. In fact, to
be blunt, he was probably one of the most disastrous presidents ever
self-inflicted by an American electorate, so far. But he was right in declaring
that «I believe the US-Russian relationship is one of the most important
relationships that our country can have, and the stronger the relationship is,
the more likely it is the world will be at peace...»
The fact that
Russia’s unqualified priority was trade, initially with Europe but expanding throughout
the globe, was welcomed by all except the warmongers of NATO and the Pentagon
whose foremost priority was justification of NATO’s existence. It didn’t matter
to them that Russia was concentrating on improving its economy for the benefit
of its people and that its defence budget was comparatively tiny. They wanted a
reason for NATO to exist, because embarrassing questions were being asked about
the need for such an expensive military grouping to endure when the reason for
its creation and very existence was simply and solely to counter the perceived
military threat from the Soviet Union that had ceased to exist. In the year of
President Putin’s visit to Texas, Russia’s expenditure on defence was 36
billion dollars, while that of the US was 290 billion and the European NATO
countries’ total was 158 billion.
In 2015, as
reported by Britain’s Daily Telegraph, the United States spent 569 billion
dollars on its military while Russia’s defence budget was 53 billion and that
of Britain a staggering 66 billion – very much more than the UK can afford. The
Telegraph and most other western media and many allegedly independent
think-tanks noted that the US military budget had decreased from the previous
year’s 610 billion, and applauded the reduction – without noting that the
massive US-NATO draw-down in Afghanistan had resulted in far less expenditure
on that disastrous war, which has cost the US taxpayer a fortune.
In 2011, for
example, the US spent 122 billion dollars fighting its war in Afghanistan. This
went down to 35 billion in 2015 thereby reducing the total defence budget. It
is deliberately misleading for the Pentagon and western media to claim that the
USA has reduced its military spending as a matter of principle.
The mantra of
those who advocate and approve massive military spending is that there are
threats from Russia and China. In the case of Russia this assertion is founded
on the Ukraine debacle, and it is fitting to briefly examine the allegation in
the light of what actually went on.
The United States
encouraged a coup in Ukraine in 2014, and although the Ukrainian news agency
Interfax reported in June 2015 that President Poroshenko stated that the
overthrow of his predecessor was «unconstitutional» there was no change to the
ceaseless western propaganda line that the whole thing was entirely democratic.
Similarly the allegations that Crimea was «annexed» by Russia have been
successful to the point that very few in the west believe that, as the UK’s
Independent newspaper reported, «Fireworks exploded and Russian flags fluttered
above jubilant crowds after residents in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede
from Ukraine and join Russia». The referendum was a perfectly fair expression
of opinion in Crimea. Indeed, it would have been very surprising if the vote
hadn’t gone in favour of rejoining Russia, because it is undeniable that the
vast majority of Crimea’s citizens are Russian-cultured and Russian-speaking.
The main thing,
however, is the allegation that Russia was in some way seeking to invade
Ukraine itself. There is no doubt that Russia was and continues to be
supportive of the separatists of eastern Ukraine, but the notion that Russia
wanted or wants to attack and occupy Ukraine is ludicrous.
Russia doesn’t
want to attack Ukraine, or any other bordering country. What possible benefit
would accrue to Russia by going to war? All that Russia wants to do is to trade
with as many countries as possible and ensure that Russian-cultured people on
its borders are treated fairly and according to their wishes.
President Obama
seems to be fundamentally decent, and is decidedly more intelligent than
President GW Bush, but he has followed the war-advocates of the Pentagon in
what can be described only as a slavish manner. His diatribe on Crimea was
directed personally against President Putin and his arrogant boast that «We
will not accept Russia’s occupation of Crimea» was a declaration of indefinite
confrontation.
Little wonder
that General Philip Breedlove, the commander of the US European Command, and
NATO’s «Supreme Allied Commander Europe», declared that «we are prepared to
fight and win» against Russia. He announced in February 2016 that in his
opinion Russia has «chosen to be an adversary and poses a long-term existential
threat» to the United States, and therefore «[t]his year's budget request
reflects our solemn commitment to the security of our allies and partners».
So up goes US
military expenditure yet again, and the Pentagon’s generals and the Wall Street
investors and the weapons manufacturers all over the United States rub their
hands in delight. These snaky schemers are what the great President Eisenhower
called the «military-industrial complex» of seemingly patriotic Americans who,
in the final essence, are America’s own worst enemy.
In 2001 when
President Bush met with President Putin he said that «the more I get to know
President Putin, the more I get to see his heart and soul and the more I know
we can work together in a positive way. And so anytime leaders can come
together and sit down and talk about key issues in a very open and honest way,
it will make relations stronger in the long run».
He was absolutely
right: but President Obama prefers military-industrial complex confrontation to
talking with President Putin in «a very open and honest way».
Washington’s
changed attitude to Russia is not only petulant and immature, it is extremely
dangerous. President Obama «will not accept» the fact that Crimea is once again
part of Russia, at the wish of its citizens. So what is he going to do about
it? What advice is he receiving from his bellicose generals?
Why is he driving
the world close to war?
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario