The drumbeat for war coming to us
about Ukraine is not good. Major U.S. figures, including John Kerry, Secretary
of State, are now calling for the Obama administration to not only support the
alleged Kiev government economically, but now militarily as well. In a Democracy Now piece aired on Feb. 4
(reprinted on ReaderSupportedNews.com), Emeritus Professor of Russian History
Stephen Cohen affirmed what former Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev said
recently:
Gorbachev had it right. We’re in a new Cold War with
Russia. The epicenter of the new Cold War is not in Berlin, like the last one,
but it’s right on Russia’s borders, so it’s much more dangerous. You and I have
talked about this since [last] February, I think. What I foresaw in February
has played out, I regret to say: A political dispute in Ukraine became a
Ukrainian civil war. Russia backed one side; the United States and NATO, the
other. So it’s not only a new Cold War, it’s a proxy war. We’re arming Kiev. Russians
are arming the eastern fighters. And I think, though I don’t want to spoil
anybody’s day—I said to you in February this had the potential to become a new
Cuban missile-style confrontation with the risk of war.
A new cold war with Russia. A proxy
war, reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis when the two nuclear powers
came to within a hair of igniting a nuclear conflagration that could’ve
destroyed half the world. If anyone doubts that, consider the facts about that
“proxy war” that Oliver Stone’s recent book and documentary, The Untold History of the United States,
reveals. Unknown to the United States, the Soviets had hundreds of tactical
nuclear weapons already up and operating in Cuba. Most generals and U.S.
officials wanted to launch quick and devastating strikes against Cuba, but
Pres. Kennedy opted for a less drastic measure—imposing a naval blockade to
prevent ships from delivering what it thought weren’t there yet, the
nuclear-armed missiles. But the tactical nukes on Cuba, along with troops to
launch them, were ready to go; so were nuclear-armed Soviet submarines in the
Atlantic. On October 27, 1962, American ships were dropping depth charges on
these submarines, unaware they were nuclear, and nearly disabled one, K-19.
Russian sailors were gasping for lack of oxygen. The captain in charge,
Savitsky, decided that the war had already begun and ordered that his nuclear
missiles be launched. Some higher power intervened, however, and the fleet
commander, Vasili Arkhipov, refused to approve the order, preventing the
launch. Within days, Soviet premier Khrushchev had contacted President Kennedy and
opened phone negotiations, whereupon the two decided that nuclear war was
untenable, and resolved the crisis with an agreement that the Soviets would
remove their nuclear missiles from Cuba in exchange for the Americans removing
theirs from Turkey (as close to Russia as Cuba is to the U.S.). The crisis did
end, though, in fact, Kennedy never followed through on his promise, and
subsequent presidents refused to honor it. So it was really the Russians who
saved humanity.
Now we have, in the United
States, what Stephen Cohen calls “the war party” agitating to take on the
Russians again. One of these war mongers, Strobe Talbott (former Deputy
Secretary of State, now president of the Brookings Institute, and, according to
Cohen, the architect of the American
policy that led to this crisis. He was “the Russia hand,” as he called his
memoir, under President Clinton, when the expansion of NATO toward Russia
began.) brought out a report that said this:
In the context of what is happening in Ukraine today,
the right way to characterize it is an act of war on the part of the Russian
Federation. This means that there is going on in Ukraine today a literal
invasion, not by—it’s not a proxy war. It’s a literal invasion by the Russian
armed forces. It’s a literal occupation of large parts, well beyond Crimea, of
eastern Ukraine. And it is a virtual annexation of a lot of territory other
than just the Crimea. And in that respect, this is a major threat to the peace
of Europe, to the peace of Eurasia, and therefore a threat to the interests of
the United States and, I would say, a threat to the chances of a peaceful 21st
century.
Talbott, of course, was seconded by
dozens of other ‘war party’ members (Sen. John McCain, as usual, indicating
that he’s never heard of a war or invasion he didn’t like), and members of the
state department’s war wing who also have been calling for more direct arms for
the Kiev government. Cohen urges Americans to stop and think what this means.
Basically, he says, they are claiming that Russia has annexed eastern Ukraine,
which is “fundamentally untrue.” And supports this by quoting the State
Department when asked if it could confirm that Russia has annexed eastern
Ukraine? To which it responded, "No,
we cannot." And yet, not ever acknowledging that it was the Kiev side who
broke the September truce and began shelling Donetsk and Luhansk, the war party
is still calling for war with Russia.
You would think that
so-called Russia experts would know a few things about the vast country called
Russia. You would think they would know how sensitive every Russian must be
about invasions of their nation by western powers—once in 1812 when Napoleon
led his armies all the way to Moscow, destroying everything in his path
including the capitol itself, only to be defeated by the Russian Cossacks who decimated
his army as it retreated from the Russian winter; and again in 1942 when Nazi
Germany’s armed divisions attacked on the Russian front, devastating cities and
countryside, and killing millions of Russians who nevertheless fought back with
inferior weapons and prevailed by tearing the guts out of that invading German
army, and, contrary to the myth that America defeated the Nazis,
counterattacked and brought Germany to its knees. (And isn’t it interesting
that the two European leaders now on a diplomatic mission to Russia are German
Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande). You would think they, of all
people, would know that any encroachment on Russian territory is seen by all
Russians as a direct threat to their survival (and they have recent experience
to substantiate this)—which is why Russia has always viewed the expansion of NATO as a threat to their existence. Which is also why keeping Ukraine in their
orbit has always been so critical. It is the border country, the gateway to
Russia itself, the gateway through which, in 1942, the Nazis drove their war
machine, helped by the western Ukrainian collaborators whose descendant
neo-Nazis formed much of the muscle for the coup that overthrew the elected
president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych (after, remember, the West’s agreement
to allow Yanukovych to remain until elections in the Spring).
Prof. Cohen acknowledges
this point—that what has been driving Putin and Russia in helping the eastern
Ukrainians is not their alleged intention to “revive the Soviet empire” but
their zeal to “stop NATO encroachment.” Many other knowledgeable observers like
Robert Parry and Prof. John Mearsheimer have made this same point. But the war
party seems determined to continue and expand this encroachment, even up to and
including igniting a hot war with Russia if necessary. It is the kind of
insanity most of us had hoped was a thing of the past—the threat of nuclear
Armageddon. But now it seems it’s only been hiding out and waiting for its
opportunity. Already, we are informed that American General Ben Hodges,
commanding general of American forces in Europe, has brought American troops to
help train Kiev’s National Guard. He has also led U.S. troops to
Latvia for a military exercise, dubbed Atlantic
Resolve, to train soldiers from Latvia, other Baltic countries and Poland. In
addition, the U.S. brought more than 50 units of military equipment, including
17 armored vehicles, Stryker, that will stay in Europe.
Yes. These arms will stay in Europe indefinitely. For what? From all
outward appearances, the American military
is making preparations for war with Russia. Prof. Cohen acknowledges this with
no little fear and trepidation:
The American war party is on the march. You can see
how close we are to, literally, a military confrontation with Russia. And there
is not one word of establishment, mainstream opposition in this country.
And one of the ways war parties do this is to build up propaganda about the
putative enemy. In the same way that we heard that Saddam Hussein was “the new
Hitler,” Russian president Putin has become the Nazi madman’s most recent
reincarnation. This is odd, because only a few months ago, he was the visionary
leader who prevented President Obama from yielding to the war hawks’ demands to
bomb Syria and President Assad for having used chemical weapons (another false
charge, it now seems.) Putin resolved the crisis by arranging for Assad to
agree to get rid of all his chemical weapons, thus eliminating the “red line”
that Obama had promised could not be crossed. And a few years back, President
G.W. Bush was boasting of his emotional and somewhat mystical rapport with the
Russian leader, when he looked him in the eye and found a comrade. But now
Putin is the new Hitler to be destroyed. And the corollary is that Russia must
be brought to its knees once again—perhaps because it has managed to make
itself indispensable, via its oil and gas reserves, to the Europe America wants
dependent on itself. Hence Saudi Arabia’s increased production to bring down
oil prices and bankrupt the Russian economy; hence the sanctions that have
forced the Russian ruble into free fall. But will Putin and Russia yield to
this kind of threat? It is not at all clear, and what history shows us is that
Russia is most dangerous, and most resourceful, when it is attacked and
fighting against long odds. For Cohen, this is unsettling indeed. Historians,
he says, will look back,
—assuming there are historians to look back, because
both sides are now mobilizing their nuclear weapons, as well. Russia has
already said that if it is faced with overwhelming force on its borders, it
will use tactical nuclear weapons. They’re nuclear small, but they’re nuclear
weapons. When is the last time you heard a great power say that? We say—Obama,
our president, says, "We’re modernizing our nuclear weapons." What
does that mean? We’re redeploying them, pointing them even more at Russia. Why
is this happening in the United States? I don’t know. I think there’s a lot of
factors mixed in, a kind of ideological hangover from the old Cold War. But the
demonization of Putin has become so extreme in this country, I do not
recall—and I entered this field back in the '60s—the United States ever
demonizing a Soviet communist leader the way our leaders do…
Somber words. Two major powers readying their nuclear arsenals for
confrontation. Can this be happening again? But considering the lack of
opposition in the U.S. at this time, considering the zealotry and insanity of
the so-called “war party,” and the history of similar war partiers during the
Cuban missile crisis, we shouldn’t dismiss Cohen’s words out of hand. We should
do everything we can to warn, educate, and protest about what is shaping up to
be yet another threat from the crazies in our world who, for whatever reason,
seem to believe that violence, staggering violence against ordinary people, is
the only way to preserve and expand their credibility, their manhood, and whatever
else they think they have.
Lawrence DiStasi
