Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

America needs revolution in political thinking – not another bogeyman scenario

Donald Trump has been cast in the role of the bogeyman in the US Presidential election in order to make an otherwise deeply flawed and unpopular Hillary Clinton electable.

Published

on

473 Views

Republican nominee for the US Presidency, Donald Trump, who slammed the US political system as ‘rigged’, seems to be himself an unwitting pawn in Washington’s high stakes game of thrones, which looks determined to crown Hillary Clinton in November.

It’s the dirtiest trick in the despot’s playbook: Introduce a foreign bogeyman as an existential threat – an individual that is (allegedly) so repugnant he distracts the masses from coming to grips with the real monsters lurking at home. Since 2001, America has propped up a long roster of such so-called villains, including Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar Assad.

I would like to add another name to the empire’s growing rogue gallery: Donald Trump.

In the race between the Democrats and Republicans to seize the heights of Power Mountain, we are witnessing the bogeyman scenario playing out once again. The new stage for this political chicanery, however, is not some Middle Eastern country bubbling over in fossil fuel and fundamentalism.

The new stage set is Main Street, USA where roams the new and improved scoundrel of the moment: Homegrown racist, misogynist, Islamophobic, total nut job Donald Trump, the real estate tycoon who ranks on par with Adolf Hitler on the likeability charts, and that’s just considering his friends inside the Republican Party.

There is a good reason why such a shady character has been allowed anywhere near the heavily guarded gated community known as the Beltway. Sit down, Democrats, this may come as a shock. Because in order for legally challenged Clinton to pull off this election with any semblance of legitimacy she needs to be matched up against a super egoist who is not afraid to speak his mind in an age that has been intimidated by PC thought police, tamed by Tweets and Likes and systematically infantilised by one socio-cultural experiment gone awry after another.

Trump hails from a less anxious era when executives banged out business deals in smoke-choked boardrooms somewhere between an afternoon power-lunch and evening cocktails, and the concept of ‘political correctness’ meant handing a colleague a glass of whiskey and a cigar when he entered the office.

Many find Trump’s unabashed in-your-face poker style refreshing compared to the mental straitjacket designed for us by the Internet inquisitionists, where one misguided Tweet can destroy an otherwise squeaky clean career. However, this daunting openness makes Trump easy bait for humorless, corporate-muzzled media that places catchphrases above ideas, style above substance, and personal intrigue above political theory.

In other words, Trump is the ultimate bogeyman. A political maverick who won’t think twice about shooting off his foot with a shotgun remark just to hammer home a point. This approach may have worked about half-a-century ago, when voters relished raw, off-the-cuff discourse and political punditry was not yet a high-paying cottage industry. These days such brazenness is just political suicide.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, the sweetheart of Wall Street, can do absolutely no wrong. And when she does take a tumble from the horse, the mud somehow always lands on Trump.

Oh, and the Russians too. Yes, Trump has even been accused of cooperating with Russia’s Vladimir Putin – another global leader who has fallen afoul of the mainstream spleen machine – in releasing hacked emails that showed the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had worked behind the scenes to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s Democratic challenger.

“We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC,” Clinton let loose in an interview with Fox. “And we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin.”

Really?

In reality (a disturbing three-dimensional place for some people), there is no evidence whatsoever linking the Russians to the leaked can of beans across the Atlantic, and there probably never will be. That’s because, despite the US media’s fantastic story about Trump and Putin’s budding bromance, it’s just that. Fantasy.

In fact, both Clinton and Trump are giving the Kremlin many sleepless nights, pondering the question as to who would be the more desirable American to negotiate with: an ego-maniacal magnate who probably flips the Monopoly board when he’s blocked from building hotels on Park Place, or a wily Washington insider who gets giddy at the thought of taking out foreign leaders?

Incidentally, claims that Trump was somehow cooperating with Putin to dash Clinton’s presidential dreams were hatched following a sarcastic remark by Trump, who wise-cracked at a rally:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing… I think you will be probably rewarded by our press.”

That is what Hillary Clinton and the obsequious media has offered up as proof to the gods of investigative journalism that Trump is cooperating with Russia.

Meanwhile, the really dirty part of this story is being quietly swept under the rug. WikiLeaks last week announced a $20,000 reward for “information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich”, a 27-year-old who was mysteriously gunned down in Washington. Although police say Rich was the victim of an attempted robbery, none of his personal belongings were taken.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange seemed to suggest that the murdered Seth Rich was an informant for his whistleblowing site.

“Whistleblowers often take very significant efforts to bring us material and often at very significant risks,” Assange told the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC and who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington.”

Meanwhile, the FBI – which failed to indict Clinton for sending government-related correspondence over a private server in the first place – is now investigating the preposterous claim that Russia is somehow behind the release of the emails.

But ultimately none of this really matters. Why? Because the American elite, like a school of piranha, has found their bait: his name is Donald Trump, and they aren’t letting go. Nothing Hillary Clinton does – even if it involves compromising national security – will change the narrative. According to the media, Trump is on par with the vilest Islamic radical.

Method to the madness

At this point, I must provide some full disclosure: I have never really understood American politics. I voted for Ronald Reagan even though I was a member of a worker’s union at the time; I swallowed Obama’s ‘hope and change’ hype with all the gusto of a kid eating cotton candy at a carnival fairground.

So as the battle between Clinton and Trump began to heat up and rational thought took a backseat to raw emotions, I was tempted, once again, to place some faith in this ridiculous “one party, two faction” sham that is passed off as democracy once every four to eight years. But then something inexplicable happened: Bernie Sanders came out in support of Clinton after failing to clinch the Democratic nomination.

Although I am no Sanders fan, it was that illuminating slap in the face moment when I finally saw the light and concluded – admittedly, a bit late in life – that the US electoral system is one big massive fraud.

Yes, there were some not-so-subtle hints before – like George W. Bush being selected, not elected, to the Oval Office by a 5-4 vote by a right-leaning Supreme Court. But for Sanders the Socialist to broadside his base by declaring fidelity to the Wall Street Queen of Mean, Hillary Clinton, well, that’s just a step too far into the realm of the implausible.

Sanders, who built his electoral base on fighting the 1 percent, had these words to say about Clinton at a rally:

“I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is, through her super-PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don’t think you are qualified if you get $15 million dollars from Wall Street… I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq.”

Sanders’ stance on divisive issues essentially built a very large wall between the Sanders’ camp and Clinton’s, but Sanders coldly sold out his supporters down the river when his campaign ran out of steam. To assume his fiercely loyal constituents would simply stroll into the Clinton camp was an insult to the intelligence of these astute voters, who must be seriously jaded at this moment.

And what was Sanders’ reasoning for throwing his support behind Clinton? To beat the big bad bogeyman named Donald Trump, of course:

“We have got to defeat Donald Trump and we have got to elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine”

Sanders told his stunned delegates at the Democratic National Convention, who responded with boos and heckles. He continued over the howling voice of collective pain:

“Brothers and sisters… this is the real world that we live in. Trump is a bully and a demagogue. Trump has made bigotry and hatred the cornerstone of his campaign…”

So how did Bernie the Socialist comfort himself from being forced out of presidential contention? Well, he went out and bought himself a house, his third. For a cool $600,000 dollars. Lenin must be turning in his grave.

But here is where the ‘Trump as bogeyman’ ploy gets really interesting. It seems The Donald has caught wind of the game he’s been unwittingly brought into. A bit like being dragged into a cheap knock-off of The Apprentice without ever being informed.

If I am correct, Trump is starting to sense exactly what role he is expected to play in this game of thrones, and that is to help Clinton make a seamless transition to the White House, and despite several 18-wheelers full of extra baggage (emails and Benghazi, for starters). But Trump ain’t playing.

At a weekend rally in Fairfield, Connecticut, Trump said his main fight is not against the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, but against journalists.

“I’m not running against Crooked Hillary,” he told his raucous supporters. “I’m running against the crooked media.”

And as everybody knows, few candidates will be able to reach the Oval office without first breaching the media firewall.

On Sunday, Trump made a plea on behalf of the First Amendment:

“It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false.”

Such talk is beginning to make some people nervous. After all, all these ‘conspiracy theories’ about a “rigged political system” could have some unintended consequences in the (highly likely) event of a Clinton victory.

Trump’s charges and counter charges are more than just campaign rhetoric, argued Timothy Frye, Professor of Political Science at Columbia University. 

“(They) raise a central issue for democracy: the willingness of losers to comply with a decision reached via free and fair elections.  Political scientists have long identified this willingness as a critical component of American democracy,” Frye continued. “The most prominent example in recent memory is Al Gore’s refusal to contest the decision of the Supreme Court awarding Florida’s electoral votes to George W. Bush, effectively handing him victory in 2000. Gore could have easily provoked a constitutional crisis by challenging the results.”

The problem with that analysis is quite simple: Trump is no Al Gore. Gore politely faded away when things turned ugly. Trump cannot be expected to do that. Trump would rather burn out than fade away. Whether that was taken into consideration when the straight-talking real estate developer was elected bogeyman is anybody’s guess. But it’s looking like some people seriously underestimated Trump’s ability to play spoiler.

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