Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

A Greek perspective on Donald Trump, Brexit, and media hysteria

The votes for Brexit and for Donald Trump are the result of some Russian plot but are a necessary rebellion against a corrupt neoliberal globalist order just one of whose crimes is the economic strangulation of Greece.

Published

on

953 Views

It’s a typical winter’s evening in Athens. This has been a cold winter, and the air is brisk. And wherever I go, the sweet smell of “success” is in the air. By “success” I am referring to none other than the vaunted “European dream,” and the “success story” of the Greek economy, as described by Greece’s former prime minister Antonis Samaras in late 2014, and as often repeated—even if not in those exact terms—by Greece’s “first time left” prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, far more recently. That scent of success comes from the noxious fumes of the fireplaces and makeshift furnaces which newly impoverished Greeks have lit to keep warm, since well over 80 percent of households are said to be unable to afford absurdly taxed heating oil for their homes.

greece rubbish

Elderly woman scavenging for food in a rubbish bin in the middle class Athens suburb of Elliniko. In January, a high-level SYRIZA government minister stated that “he no longer sees people searching the garbage for food.” Photo Credit: Antonis Pothitos

This piece though is not meant to be about Greece, but about the United States, the anti-Russian hysteria that has taken hold, and the attacks that the newly inaugurated Trump administration is facing from protesters, the media, and the “deep state.” What does all of this have to do with Greece though? Everything. Crisis-stricken Greece represents a microcosm of what is transpiring in the United States and much of Europe today, and offers a useful lens through which to analyse current developments.

Living in Greece over the past four-plus years, I’ve had the opportunity to view politics and economics from a different lens, one far removed from warm-and-fuzzy claims about the “European dream” or the utopian vision of “open borders” and “freedom of movement.” Greece is a country which has been ravaged by EU and IMF-imposed austerity, its economy and domestic production decimated by EU rules and regulations such as the common agricultural policy, and a country which has been inundated with far more migrants than it could realistically absorb, even during more prosperous economic times.

Indeed, the hypocrisy has been astounding. Greece and the Greek people have been blamed for being “racist” and “xenophobic” to migrants that have entered the country simply due to its geographical location and as a result of wars and conflicts which other countries have fuelled. Greece has been accused of “living beyond its means” when its welfare state was never as well-developed or generous as those of Northern Europe and where average incomes have perpetually lagged behind most countries of Northern and Western Europe. The Greek governments of the post-junta period were accused (correctly) of being corrupt, but the EU openly supports those same political parties (New Democracy, PASOK, and the current governing coalition of SYRIZA and the Independent Greeks, which are home to many ex-PASOK and ex-New Democracy MPs) due to their unabashed pro-EU, pro-Eurozone stance. Greece is accused of not producing anything, when it is during the years of EU and Eurozone membership that Greece’s domestic industry and agricultural production were decimated, as Greece’s market was flooded with German imports and Brussels bureaucrats told Greek farmers what to grow, what not to grow, and where they could or could not export their produce.

On a visit to EU and NATO headquarters in 2013 as part of an official academic program, the contempt  with which Brussels technocrats viewed Greece and the other countries of the “European south” could barely be contained. We were told that Mario Monti—Italy’s prime minister at the time, who was not elected but instead appointed at the behest of the EU—was the “best thing that ever happened for Italy.” We were told that Mussolini “got the job done.” We were told, in these exact words, that the reasons for the European financial crisis were “Bad design. Bad luck. Bad decisions. Greece.” Or as EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström is alleged to have said she “does not receive her mandate from the European people,” and as Dutch finance minister and Eurogroup head Jeroen Dijsselbloem said more recently, the people of southern Europe blew their cash on women and booze and are therefore not deserving of help. Such is democracy and solidarity in the Nobel Prize-winning EU.

Therefore, when the referendum result in favour of “Brexit” prevailed in Britain, I was overjoyed. The European Union that I had seen, lived, and experienced was undemocratic, authoritarian, and brutal. In Greece, however, a historical inferiority complex vis-à-vis the “west” fostered an attitude of learned helplessness and dependence on the EU, without which Greece could supposedly not survive. Hence, it was refreshing to see voters in another EU member-state stand up to Brussels.

This, however, was not the prevalent view in the European or North American news media, which reacted in contempt, horror, and disgust at the referendum result. In the United States, snarky late-night television comedians, pandering to the supposedly “progressive” and “hipster” crowd, joined the news media’s chorus in describing the Brexit referendum result as the product of racism and xenophobia. No mention about austerity, about incomes and pensions that had been slashed in half in Greece, of previously middle class households unable to heat their homes and burning whatever they could find instead. The EU was, and continues to be, widely described as a “force for peace,” its open borders touted as a sign of “progress.” On her recent visit to Washington, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of Europe’s harshest pro-austerity hard liners, was referred to by the pro-Hillary, pro-globalist Politico as “the leader of the free world.” Unabashedly displaying its globalist world view, the popular feminist website Jezebel previously referred to Merkel as the “last pillar of liberal democracy in Europe.”

For those keeping score, websites like Politico and Jezebel are touting the European Union, and the chancellor of Europe’s strongest economy, Germany, as the last bastions of democracy and freedom not just in Europe, but worldwide. The same Germany which has inflexibly insisted on the continued, harsh imposition of inhuman austerity measures in Greece and the other countries of the European South, measures which have been found, repeatedly, to violate the basic human rights of the citizens of Greece and other countries. All the while, Germany has benefited handsomely from an economic point of view—both from the returns it is receiving on the loans it has imposed on Greece and from the brain drain of the European south, with many educated young people from Southern Europe finding their way to Germany. The same Germany whose finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, who apparently is also the finance minister of Greece and Spain and Portugal and Italy, has said “[e]lections change nothing. There are rules.” This is same Germany that has remained completely inflexible on the issue of Greece’s debt, and this is the same Germany who we are told is the “leader of the free world.”

So Germany has been whitewashed and thrust into the role of world leader of peace, justice, freedom, and democracy by the same global media empire which openly and unabashedly supported Hillary Clinton in the U.S. presidential elections and insisted, ad nauseam, that she would easily defeat Donald Trump. The United States, of course, can no longer fulfil the role of so-called “leader of the free world,” in the eyes of the media, because the “fascist Russian agent” Trump is president instead of the honourable Secretary Clinton, who once cackled on TV, “we came, we saw, he died.” Oh, but I forgot, when it’s your guy or gal fighting wars and killing sovereign leaders overseas, it’s okay. That must explain why the “antiwar” movement went extinct right around the time that Barack “hope and change” Obama became president. That must also explain why George W. Bush, whose administration invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on false pretences, has, just like Merkel, been whitewashed, as evidenced by his recent appearance on “Ellen” which we were told would make us “warm up” to him. After all, he purportedly hates Trump and Putin—therefore he must not be that bad of a guy!

Similarly, when Obama deported record numbers of illegal immigrants from the United States, when he bailed out banks responsible for the economic collapse of 2007-2008 and refused to prosecute even one of banker but instead prosecuted whistleblowers, when he waged seven wars and dropped over 20,000 bombs from drones and failed to shutter the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, he too was whitewashed. Indeed, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and gets to dine with celebrity social justice warriors such as Bono, whilst receiving star treatment wherever he goes. When he referred to the “57 states” of the U.S., just like when representative Maxine Waters referred to Putin’s invasion of “Korea,” the media gave a free pass—no “Bowling Green” treatment for them!

For those with their eyes open all these years, it is easy to realise that not only were the U.S. and international media subservient and compliant during the eight years of the Obama administration, but they also never hit the Bush administration nearly as hard as they hit Trump. At best, Bush’s “bushisms” served as late night TV comedy fodder, downplaying their seriousness. I clearly remember the same media in lockstep with the Bush administration on the Afghanistan and Iraq war marches, while voices who dared to oppose these invasions were canned in short order, even by the purportedly “liberal” MSNBC. Remember Phil Donahue? Me either.

At that time, not only was there a (supposed) “antiwar movement,” but there were also many activists decrying the media’s hawkish slant and the concentration of media outlets in the hands of a few huge corporations. Just like the “antiwar movement,” those voices of dissent against the “corporate media” have shut up now. With the media attacking Trump 24/7, fearmongering non-stop over the “Russian menace” and the “tyrant” Vladimir Putin—whom we are told rivals only Trump in his resemblance to Hitler—and with anyone who dares to support Brexit or the elimination of “free trade” agreements such as TPP and TTIP which would place multinational corporations above any domestic law denounced as a “fascist” and “racist” and “xenophobe,” the very same ex-activists have become the biggest shills and cheerleaders for the very same corporate media which they once loudly decried.

Take Brexit as a case in point. Those who chose to take back the sovereignty of their country and to speak out against the unelected supranational German-dominated behemoth in Brussels have been branded as “racists” and “nationalists” and “xenophobes.” These are the “scarlet letters” of today’s “progressive” and globalist age. No one cares that many of these voters are not racist, but are very much concerned about the fact that they do not have jobs or are unable to support themselves and their families with their current dead-end employment, that the economy and infrastructure of their country is crumbling, and that there is additional downward pressure being placed on their wages and on the social state through the importation of cheap, “flexible” labor from countries who have been torn apart as a result of western-imposed war and conflict, such as in Syria. Countries that are, in other words, war-torn and impoverished with the support of the very same people who are clamouring for “open borders” and who are, without a hint of irony, branding their opponents as “racists” and “xenophobes.” Because that’s what it’s all about: foster crisis, force people to flee, and use their desperation to pit them against the poorer classes in your society, to drive wages down and profits up. That’s what the whole idea behind “open borders” and “refugees welcome” and creating the conditions which lead to refugees and the brain drain is all about, in case you haven’t realised it.

There are protests, of course. Protests in favour of uprooting populations, creating migrants and refugees, providing them special privileges and decimating the working class and the middle class some more. Protests in favour of the austerity-driven Eurozone and EU. Protests which sprung up like magic the moment Donald Trump became president, when for the past eight years, there was hardly any protest against austerity in Europe, or war and drone strikes in the Middle East, or the record numbers of deportations under Obama’s watch. We’re supposed to believe that tens of thousands of protesters in all corners of the United States, for instance, were able to obtain pink hats in short order and were able to coordinate and to “send a message” to Trump—before he even entered the Oval Office.

Here, it is important to remember that there are three components to every protest: what is being protested against, what is being advocated for as an alternative, and who is organising the protest (and what their ulterior motives may be). It’s no coincidence, therefore, that antiwar protests during the eight years of Obama’s reign barely registered a blip on the radar—and were thoroughly ignored by the mass media—but protests during the two months of Trump’s presidency have enjoyed abundant and positive media coverage. To share an example from Greece, rallies that were organised in the lead up to the country’s July 2015 referendum on accepting an EU-proposed austerity package and which were in favour of a “no” vote drew hundreds of thousands of people, despite having only a few days’ notice of the referendum. Following the referendum, when the “no” vote which prevailed was thoroughly betrayed by the SYRIZA-led coalition government, participation at protests against this betrayal numbered a few hundred people, tops. The reasons should be obvious to anybody with their eyes open. And to add to this, the “leftist” SYRIZA government gets a pass, its betrayal excused away as the result of being “blackmailed” by the EU. In the same breath, SYRIZA’s globalist apologists then tell us that Greece must remain in the EU “at all costs” and what a great, noble thing the EU’s “open borders” and “free movement of peoples” is, and how Greece will collapse and die if it leaves the euro. Political schizophrenia at its finest.

If you’re protesting something because you wish to return to the previous status quo, where you turned a blind eye to everything you now claim to be protesting, then you are disingenuous and hypocritical (at best). One should also never forget to also ask, where’s the money and logistical support and the perfectly crafted slogans and hashtags and the massive amounts of pink hats coming from. Answer that and you also answer what is actually being advocated and who is organising these protests.

Personally, I’ll never forget the disappearance of the “antiwar” movement after Obama was elected, the support of Democrats and many alleged “progressives” for the bombing and destruction of Serbia and the dismantling of the Balkans (under the watch of Bill Clinton), their blind support of the grossly undemocratic EU and the despicable branding of anyone opposed to it as a “racist” and “xenophobe,” and the silence when “hope and change” was bailing out major banks while ordinary people of all colours were losing their homes and 20,000 bombs were being dropped across seven wars that were being waged. All of this while the media and while most “activist” groups remained silent. Now suddenly Trump is the problem?

Anyone who truly is concerned about human rights, instead of blindly parroting the “open borders” and “refugees welcome” agenda, should ask themselves why there are refugees in the first place, and who started and who is perpetuating the conflict that is forcing them to flee. And anyone who is truly concerned about democracy should ask themselves if majorities of people in several countries suddenly became fascists overnight, or if there are other, legitimate reasons why they do not support “free trade” or “open borders” or supranational institutional behemoths such as the EU.

To be clear, this isn’t an endorsement of Donald Trump. But it also is not an endorsement of the McCarthyite witch hunt, the media hysteria and scaremongering against Russia, or their pro-Hillary and pro-Obama and pro-EU propaganda. Moreover, it is not an endorsement of the incumbent establishment. What more evidence is needed to see that there’s no such thing as Democrats and Republicans, for instance? There’s an incumbent neoliberal establishment, defended by the corporate mass media and its “presstitutes,” by the military-industrial complex, and by elite billionaires, and there are those who stand in its way, or who are perceived as standing in its way.

Which side are you on?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Ukraine Wants Nuclear Weapons: Will the West Bow to the Regime in Kiev?

Efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation are one of the few issues on which the great powers agree, intending to continue to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and to prevent new entrants into the exclusive nuclear club.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The former Ukrainian envoy to NATO, Major General Petro Garashchuk, recently stated in an interview with Obozrevatel TV:

“I’ll say it once more. We have the ability to develop and produce our own nuclear weapons, currently available in the world, such as the one that was built in the former USSR and which is now in independent Ukraine, located in the city of Dnipro (former Dnipropetrovsk) that can produce these kinds of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Neither the United States, nor Russia, nor China have produced a missile named Satan … At the same time, Ukraine does not have to worry about international sanctions when creating these nuclear weapons.”

The issue of nuclear weapons has always united the great powers, especially following the signing of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The decision to reduce the number of nuclear weapons towards the end of the Cold War went hand in hand with the need to prevent the spread of such weapons of mass destruction to other countries in the best interests of humanity. During the final stages of the Cold War, the scientific community expended great effort on impressing upon the American and Soviet leadership how a limited nuclear exchange would wipe out humanity. Moscow and Washington thus began START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) negotiations to reduce the risk of a nuclear winter. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances persuaded Ukraine to relinquish its nuclear weapons and accede to the NPT in exchange for security assurances from its signatories.

Ukraine has in recent years begun entertaining the possibility of returning to the nuclear fold, especially in light of North Korea’s recent actions. Kim Jong-un’s lesson seems to be that a nuclear deterrent remains the only way of guaranteeing complete protection against a regional hegemon. The situation in Ukraine, however, differs from that of North Korea, including in terms of alliances and power relations. Kiev’s government came into power as a result of a coup d’etat carried out by extremist nationalist elements who seek their inspiration from Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. The long arm of NATO has always been deeply involved in the dark machinations that led to Poroshenko’s ascendency to the Ukrainian presidency. From a geopolitical point of view, NATO’s operation in Ukraine (instigating a civil war in the wake of a coup) follows in the footsteps of what happened in Georgia. NATO tends to organize countries with existing anti-Russia sentiments to channel their Russophobia into concrete actions that aim to undermine Moscow. The war in the Donbass is a prime example.

However, Ukraine has been unable to subdue the rebels in the Donbass region, the conflict freezing into a stalemate and the popularity of the Kiev government falling as the population’s quality of life experiences a precipitous decline. The United States and the European Union have not kept their promises, leaving Poroshenko desperate and tempted to resort to provocations like the recent Kerch strait incident or such as those that are apparently already in the works, as recently reported by the DPR authorities.

The idea of Ukraine resuming its production of nuclear weapons is currently being floated by minor figures, but it could take hold in the coming months, especially if the conflict continues in its frozen state and Kiev becomes frustrated and desperate. The neoconservative wing of the American ruling elite, absolutely committed to the destruction of the Russian Federation, could encourage Kiev along this path, in spite of the incalculable risks involved. The EU, on the other hand, would likely be terrified at the prospect, which would also place it between a rock and a hard place. Kiev, on one side, would be able to extract from the EU much needed economic assistance in exchange for not going nuclear, while on the other side the neocons would be irresponsibly egging the Ukrainians on.

Moscow, if faced with such a possibility, would not just stand there. In spite of Russia having good relations with North Korea, it did not seem too excited at the prospect of having a nuclear-armed neighbor. With Ukraine, the response would be much more severe. A nuclear-armed Ukraine would be a red line for Moscow, just as Crimea and Sevastopol were. It is worth remembering the Russian president’s words when referring to the possibility of a NATO invasion of Crimea during the 2014 coup:

“We were ready to do it [putting Russia’s nuclear arsenal on alert]. Russian people live there, they are in danger, we cannot leave them. It was not us who committed to coup, it was the nationalists and people with extreme beliefs. I do not think this is actually anyone’s wish – to turn it into a global conflict.”

As Kiev stands on the precipice, it will be good for the neocons, the neoliberals and their European lackeys to consider the consequences of advising Kiev to jump or not. Giving the nuclear go-ahead to a Ukrainian leadership so unstable and detached from reality may just be the spark that sets off Armageddon.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Mike Pompeo lays out his vision for American exceptionalism (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 158.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and International Affairs and Security Analyst via Moscow, Mark Sleboda take a look at Mike Pompeo’s shocking Brussels speech, where the U.S. Secretary of State took aim at the European Union and United Nations, citing such institutions as outdated and poorly managed, in need of a new dogma that places America at its epicenter.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Speaking in Brussels, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo unwittingly underscored why nobody takes the United States seriously on the international stage. Via The Council on Foreign Relations


In a disingenuous speech at the German Marshall Fund, Pompeo depicted the transactional and hypernationalist Trump administration as “rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order.” He did so while launching gratuitous attacks on the European Union, United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF)—pillars of the existing postwar order the United States did so much to create. He remained silent, naturally, on the body blows that the current administration has delivered to its erstwhile allies and partners, and to the institutions that once upon a time permitted the United States to legitimate rather than squander its international leadership.

In Pompeo’s telling, Donald J. Trump is simply seeking a return to the world that former Secretary of State George Marshall helped to create. In the decades after 1945, the United States “underwrote new institutions” and “entered into treaties to codify Western values of freedom and human rights.” So doing, the United States “won the Cold War” and—thanks to the late President George H. W. Bush, “we won the peace” that followed. “This is the type of leadership that President Trump is boldly reasserting.”

That leadership is needed because the United States “allowed this liberal order to begin to corrode” once the bipolar conflict ended. “Multilateralism has too often become viewed as an end unto itself,” Pompeo explained. “The more treaties we sign, the safer we supposedly are. The more bureaucrats we have, the better the job gets done.” What is needed is a multilateralism that once again places the nation-state front and center.

Leave aside for the moment that nobody actually believes what Pompeo alleges: that multilateralism should be an end in itself; that paper commitments are credible absent implementation, verification, and enforcement; or that the yardstick of success is how many bureaucrats get hired. What sensible people do believe is that multilateral cooperation is often (though not always) the best way for nations to advance their interests in an interconnected world of complicated problems. Working with others is typically superior to unilateralism, since going it alone leaves the United States with the choice of trying to do everything itself (with uncertain results) or doing nothing. Multilateralism also provides far more bang for the buck than President Trump’s favored approach to diplomacy, bilateralism.

Much of Pompeo’s address was a selective and tendentious critique of international institutions that depicts them as invariably antithetical to national sovereignty. Sure, he conceded, the European Union has “delivered a great deal of prosperity to the continent.” But it has since gone badly off track, as the “political wake-up call” of Brexit showed. All this raised a question in his mind: “Is the EU ensuring that the interests of countries and their citizens are placed before those of bureaucrats and Brussels?”

The answer, as one listener shouted out, is “Yes!” The secretary, like many U.S. conservative critics of European integration, is unaware that EU member states continue to hold the lion’s share of power in the bloc, which remains more intergovernmental than supranational. Pompeo seems equally unaware of how disastrously Brexit is playing out. With each passing day, the costs of this catastrophic, self-inflicted wound are clearer. In its quest for complete policy autonomy—on ostensible “sovereignty” grounds—the United Kingdom will likely have to accept, as the price for EU market access, an entire body of law and regulations that it will have no say in shaping. So much for advancing British sovereignty.

Pompeo similarly mischaracterizes the World Bank and IMF as having gone badly off track. “Today, these institutions often counsel countries who have mismanaged their economic affairs to impose austerity measures that inhibit growth and crowd out private sector actors.” This is an odd, hybrid critique. It combines a shopworn, leftist criticism from the 1990s—that the international financial institutions (IFIs) punish poor countries with structural adjustment programs—with the conservative accusation that the IFIs are socialist, big-government behemoths. Both are ridiculous caricatures. They ignore how much soul-searching the IFIs have done since the 1990s, as well as how focused they are on nurturing an enabling institutional environment for the private sector in partner countries.

Pompeo also aims his blunderbuss at the United Nations. He complains that the United Nations’ “peacekeeping missions drag on for decades, no closer to peace,” ignoring the indispensable role that blue helmets play in preventing atrocities, as well as a recent Government Accountability Office report documenting how cost-effective such operations are compared to U.S. troops. Similarly, Pompeo claims, “The UN’s climate-related treaties are viewed by some nations simply as a vehicle to redistribute wealth”—an accusation that is both unsubstantiated and ignores the urgent need to mobilize global climate financing to save the planet.

Bizarrely, Pompeo also turns his sights on the Organization of American States (OAS) and the African Union (AU), for alleged shortcomings. Has the OAS, he asks, done enough “to promote its four pillars of democracy, human rights, security, and economic development?” Um, no. Could that have something to do with the lack of U.S. leadership in the Americas on democracy and human rights? Yes. Might it have helped if the Trump administration had filled the position of assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs before October 15 of this year? Probably.

Equally puzzling is Pompeo’s single line riff on the AU. “In Africa, does the African Union advance the mutual interest of its nation-state members?” Presumably the answer is yes, or its members would be headed for the door. The AU continues to struggle in financing its budget, but it has made great strides since its founding in 2002 to better advance security, stability, and good governance on the continent.

“International bodies must help facilitate cooperation that bolsters the security and values of the free world, or they must be reformed or eliminated,” Pompeo declared. Sounds reasonable. But where is this “free world” of which the secretary speaks, and what standing does the United States today have to defend, much less reform it? In the two years since he took office, Donald Trump has never expressed any interest in defending the international order, much less “returning [the United States] to its traditional, central leadership role in the world,” as Pompeo claims. Indeed, the phrase “U.S. leadership” has rarely escaped Trump’s lips, and he has gone out of his way to alienate longstanding Western allies and partners in venues from NATO to the G7.

When he looks at the world, the president cares only about what’s in it for the United States (and, naturally, for him). That cynicism explains the president’s deafening silence on human rights violations and indeed his readiness to cozy up to strongmen and killers from Vladimir Putin to Rodrigo Duterte to Mohammed bin Salman to too many more to list. Given Trump’s authoritarian sympathies and instincts, Pompeo’s warnings about “Orwellian human rights violations” in China and “suppressed opposition voices” in Russia ring hollow.

“The central question that we face,” Pompeo asked in Brussels, “is the question of whether the system as currently configured, as it exists today—does it work? Does it work for all the people of the world?” The answer, of course, is not as well as it should, and not for nearly enough of them. But if the secretary is seeking to identify impediments to a better functioning multilateral system, he can look to his left in his next Cabinet meeting.

“Principled realism” is the label Pompeo has given Trump’s foreign policy. Alas, it betrays few principles and its connection to reality is tenuous. The president has abandoned any pursuit of universal values, and his single-minded obsession to “reassert our sovereignty” (as Pompeo characterizes it) is actually depriving the United States of joining with others to build the prosperous, secure, and sustainable world that Americans want.

“Bad actors have exploited our lack of leadership for their own gain,” the secretary of state declared in Belgium. “This is the poisoned fruit of American retreat.” How true. Pompeo’s next sentence—“President Trump is determined to reverse that”—was less persuasive.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Russia calls on US to put a leash on Petro Poroshenko

The West’s pass for Mr. Poroshenko may blow up in NATO’s and the US’s face if the Ukrainian President tries to start a war with Russia.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Russia called on Washington not to ignore the Poroshenko directives creating an active military buildup along the Ukrainian-Donbass frontier, this buildup consisting of Ukrainian forces and right-wing ultranationalists, lest it “trigger the implementation of a bloody scenario”, according to a Dec 11 report from TASS.

The [Russian] Embassy [to the US] urges the US State Department to recognize the presence of US instructors in the zone of combat actions, who are involved in a command and staff and field training of Ukraine’s assault airborne brigades. “We expect that the US will bring to reason its proteges. Their aggressive plans are not only doomed to failure but also run counter to the statements of the administration on its commitment to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine by political and diplomatic means,” the statement said.

This warning came after Eduard Basurin, the deputy defense minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic noted that the Ukrainian army was massing troops and materiel for a possible large-scale offensive at the Mariupol section of the contact line in Donbass. According to Basurin, this action is expected to take place on 14 December. TASS offered more details:

According to the DPR’s reconnaissance data, Ukrainian troops plan to seize the DPR’s Novoazovsky and Temanovsky districts and take control over the border section with Russia. The main attack force of over 12,000 servicemen has been deployed along the contact line near the settlements of Novotroitskoye, Shirokino, and Rovnopol. Moreover, more than 50 tanks, 40 multiple missile launcher systems, 180 artillery systems and mortars have been reportedly pulled to the area, Basurin added. Besides, 12 BM-30 Smerch heavy multiple rocket launchers have been sent near Volodarsky.

The DPR has warned about possible provocations plotted by Ukrainian troops several times. Thus, in early December, the DPR’s defense ministry cited reconnaissance data indicating that the Ukrainian military was planning to stage an offensive and deliver an airstrike. At a Contact Group meeting on December 5, DPR’s Foreign Minister Natalia Nikonorova raised the issue of Kiev’s possible use of chemical weapons in the conflict area.

This is a continuation of the reported buildup The Duran reported in this article linked here, and it is a continuation of the full-scale drama that started with the Kerch Strait incident, which itself appears to have been staged by Ukraine’s president Petro Poroshenko. Following that incident, the president was able to get about half of Ukraine placed under a 30-day period of martial law, citing “imminent Russian aggression.”

President Poroshenko is arguably a dangerous man. He appears to be desperate to maintain a hold on power, though his approval numbers and support is abysmally low in Ukraine. While he presents himself as a hero, agitating for armed conflict with Russia and simultaneously interfering in the affairs of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church, he is actually one of the most dangerous leaders the world has to contend with, precisely because he is unfit to lead.

Such men and women are dangerous because their desperation makes them short-sighted, only concerned about their power and standing.

An irony about this matter is that President Poroshenko appears to be exactly what the EuroMaidan was “supposed” to free Ukraine of; that is, a stooge puppet leader that marches to orders from a foreign power and does nothing for the improvement of the nation and its citizens.

The ouster of Viktor Yanukovich was seen as the sure ticket to “freedom from Russia” for Ukraine, and it may well have been that Mr. Yanukovich was an incompetent leader. However, his removal resulted in a tryannical regíme coming into power, that resulting in the secession of two Ukrainian regions into independent republics and a third secession of strategically super-important Crimea, who voted in a referendum to rejoin Russia.

While this activity was used by the West to try to bolster its own narrative that Russia remains the evil henchman in Europe, the reality of life in Ukraine doesn’t match this allegation at all. A nation that demonstrates such behavior shows that there are many problems, and the nature of these secessions points at a great deal of fear from Russian-speaking Ukrainian people about the government that is supposed to be their own.

President Poroshenko presents a face to the world that the West is apparently willing to support, but the in-country approval of this man as leader speaks volumes. The West’s blind support of him “against Russia” may be one of the most tragic errors yet in Western foreign policy.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending