The Popular Beliefs in the West are Actually Bad For Ukraine and Humanity
The phony fight for "democracy" is really just a guise for a load of armed insurgencies, violent proxies, alienation, and human division that U.S. hegemony subsists off of, even if it risks disaster.
It's been over two weeks since the detestable but completely avoidable invasion of Ukraine commenced, and the United States and NATO have only worked to heighten the instability for Ukrainians while they claim to be standing up for them.
This as the U.S. is telling its citizens—the vast majority of whom were struggling beneath the weight of low wages, lack of access to healthcare, and the jaws of inflation well in advance of any foreign invasion—to eat it at the gas pump where prices are dollars higher a gallon than before. Though he was reluctant, according to The New York Times, to do so considering the steep prices that would face Americans, President Biden nevertheless banned Russian oil, and for noble reasons, he claimed.
"Defending freedom is going to cost," the president said in his televised remarks.
As it turns out, he's right. This whole thing is going to cost hundreds of millions of people all around the world. Regarding the defense of "freedom," though, he's deliberately lying— really, there's little in it for us.
This has nothing to do with freedom as is claimed. If there was any consideration of freedom, democracy, or any one of those buzzwords that generates blindfolded patriotism, there would have been discretion and respect, such as never fueling a coup to remove a democratically-elected government in the first place or never deciding to send arms to Ukraine to further escalate a situation that has put Eastern Ukraine, particularly the Donbas, through years of violence and war.
Instead, this is a conflict that has everything to do with the shifting of world power from the unipolar U.S.-NATO led order to the multipolar world that counterbalances the western power bloc with a Russian-Chinese partnership.
When it comes to a jostling match for world power, the things the U.S. government purports to stand up for and abide by are nothing but ploys for their own ambitions and goals.
Of course, there is no use trying to think about the invasion as anything but illegal. At the same time, one has to understand that the redlines that Russia laid out prior to Putin's move, remain the same now.
Those demands are 1) recognize Crimea as part of Russia, 2) grant independence to the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, and 3) declare Ukrainian neutrality in its constitution.
Not only are they actually reasonable, it is in the best interest of every human life that they be met. It isn't controversial to say Ukraine stands little chance against Russia's military, who seem willing to call in heavier equipment and tactics if the fighting persists, so to insist in trying to send weapons into the country, prolong the conflict, and dangle on the edge of world war is extremely bad for Ukrainians and all of humanity.
The western corporatist establishment is doing everything they can to drown out such reason as Washington's hawkish hacks repeat the requests of Zelensky for a "No-FLy Zone" like it's another way of saying "peace, love, flower power, and pass the doob, man."
It's insane.
The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal interviewed congresswoman María Salazar (R - FL) who—credit to her?—advocated for a no-fly zone before her own admission that she has no idea what it is.
So it goes for the popular narrative: empowered to talk, unaware that they're actually passing gas.
Think about the unabashed economic warfare being waged. Many have pointed to the various consequences that may arise as a result of such zeal.
First, Russia's banking sector is no longer able to use the U.S. dollar since they were removed from the SWIFT transfer system. Half of the county's money has been seized, leaving behind cash and gold with further sanctions, perhaps targeting gold, likely on the way. In all, Russia has a liquidity problem while the Ruble is at roughly half its value, growth has stalled, Russians' savings are essentially useless, and the potential for a banking crisis has risen considerably.
Then there is the fact that the whole plan of targeting Putin where it hurts him and initiating an economic war is silly beyond face value. A favorite tactic of the United States, sanctions always carry the heaviest price for a country's ordinary people. On top of putting a squeeze on ordinary Russians' lives and savings accounts, the effects of these sanctions could be having an opposite effect on Putin's popularity, similar to how his popularity rose after the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Of course, there is the matter of responses and repercussions. As more sanctions are administered towards Russia, they still evidently have their own ability to utilize counter-sanctions.
One thing that is clear of Putin and most worrying is the fact that when the U.S. and the west actively facilitate in pushing him into a difficult situation, his response tends to be the extreme. The U.S.-NATO side was not interested in discussing the aforementioned demands of Russia, and Russia reacted with invasion— that doesn't make it right, but Putin's strategy, especially in the shift to a multipolar war, is to act tougher in the face of western hegemony. Again, once one combines the west's moral supremacy and imperialistic tendencies with Russia's bellicose readiness to defend its interests, the results can only creep closer to grave danger.
Putin seems prepared to play his own part in revving up the potential consequences as a means to weaponize the economy. Even if it means putting large dents into his nation's economy, Putin understands Russia's claim as being among the world's top exporters of oil, gas, metals, and grain.
As longtime reporter on Russia Ben Aris noted, they have an upper hand in some aspects of the economy as well that limits the scope of what the west seeks to achieve with their tugs on the economic trigger. Banning titanium imports, for instance, would hit their own aviation industry, and prohibiting grain from the third largest exporter of it in the world would cause bread prices to jump globally. And Putin has room to get more aggressive by threatening these commodities as they stand in the global economy.
This in itself shows that Russia could wield their own economic weapon. What if they decided to shut off the gas supply to Europe? What if Europeans all of a sudden can't warm their houses or get around? Europe can't replace that supply. If Putin has resorted to the most brazen option when push comes to shove, why wouldn't he do so here?
Similar to how Putin would be the one to allow things to get to that point, so is the willingness of the west as well. Of course, the west has less draconian control over their populations compared to Putin's regime, but that is not a fact that looks to be growing any more durable. Western nation states could very well see the effects on its citizens and be forced to consider dropping the economic war.
However, it doesn't seem nearly that simple. Especially with an unprecedented shift in the world's power structure. In trying to preserve its hegemony as the structure begins to morph, the U.S. and the west seem ready to lean further into this crisis.
If the corporatist power establishment can convince a large swath of the population that high gas prices are worth paying in order to fight tyranny, why wouldn't they try to step up the rhetoric and claim that the worsening economic realities and the wide scale sacrifice of most people's liberties are worth it in the battle to combat tyrannical disregard for democracy?
Point is, in an economic sense, there is too much at stake in terms of not only Russians, but the rest of the world.
One point Aris made was that maybe this was part of Russia's plan. That perhaps they knew commodity prices would skyrocket globally and that they would be able to have a self-funding conflict. If that's the case, the west seems equally, if not more so, intent to further commit to this "fight" and inch the world closer to crisis.
Again, the world stares face to face with all of these potentialities even as it is clear Russia will outmatch Ukraine barring the event of Zelensky—and by extension the west—deciding to agree to Russia's consistent demands. What's best for Ukrainians and humanity, as is growing abundantly clear, is to agree to the requests thereby ending the economic war. Moreover, though, it would halt the bloodshed and nip any sort of years-long descent into chaos in the bud.
The ideology of the establishment, however, seemingly won't allow. Thus the division among the world's population, the alienation and atomization of understanding our inherent commonalities, is setting the stage for what could be years, if not decades, of pain and sadness for the already tragedy-prone Ukrainians.
In what was an incredible showing of brazen transparency regarding the sickest aspects of our nation's habit of funding insurgency groups, Hillary Clinton went on entertainer and over-the-top gesticulator Rachel Maddow's show to brag about how it would be good policy for the U.S. to fund and arm an insurgency within Ukraine similar to that of Afghanistan and Syria.
Along with many of the typical talking points that include "defending democracy" and "freedom," here is the most revelatory part of what Clinton was saying (emphasis my own):
But, remember, the Russians invaded Afghanistan back in 1980. And although no country went in, they certainly had a lot of countries supplying arms and advice and even some advisers to those who were recruited to fight Russia. It didn't end well for the Russians. There were other unintended consequences, as we know. But the fact is that a very motivated and then funded and armed insurgency basically drove the Russians out of Afghanistan.
Obviously, the similarities are not ones that you should bank on, because the terrain, the development in urban areas, et cetera, is so different.
But I think that is the model that people are now looking toward. And if there can be sufficient armaments that get in -- and they should be able to get in along some of the borders between other nations and Ukraine -- and keep the Ukrainian, both their military and their citizen volunteer soldiers supplied, that can continue to stymie Russia.
Now, let's be clear that Russia has overwhelming military force. But, of course, they did in Afghanistan as well. They also brought a lot of airpower to Syria. It has -- it took years to finally defeat Syria, in terms of the insurgencies, the democratic forces, as well as others who battled the Russians, the Syrians and the Iranians.
On top of urging for further armament shipments to go into Ukraine to aid the effort, Clinton admitted the "overwhelming" superiority of the Russian military. "Of course, they did in Afghanistan as well," she added.
What Clinton was suggesting here is that despite the fact that Ukraine can in no way overcome the Russian military, continued arm shipments and "insurgencies" in the Eastern European country would be good U.S. policy, even as she acknowledged certain "unintended consequences."
Regarding Afghanistan, she is referencing the CIA's funding of the Mujiahadeen, the group that led to the birth of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And those "consequences" she seemed to chuckle at as though it was an afterthought were Al-Qaeda's ostensibly major role in the September 11th attacks in 2001.
That should send a cold chill down the spine.
Not just 9/11, but the absolute destruction that stole the lives of millions and engulfed the regions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere in chaos durning and as a result of the war on terror— those are the kinds of consequences that ripped at humanity as a result from U.S. regime-change tactics as disguised as the defense of freedom.
And Americans should feel patriotic about that?
The uninhibited ability to gin up the jingoism within this country has underlined the ripeness for severe tragedy that can face the whole world. And the blindness to this manufacturing maintains a steady breeze on the red-hot sparks, threatening to fan the flames.
Speaking of unkind memories of what was once portrayed as American exceptionalism, two things are prominent once more in the current situation: Victoria Nuland and biolabs.
Current Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, as noted in this space before, arguably lead the point of attack from the standpoint of the U.S.'s role in the coup of 2014—explicitly picking the new leader—and she was back in the spotlight this past week talking about one of the world population's favorite topics: chemical and biological weapons.
For a while now, Russia and China have both maintained that Ukraine has, within their borders, biological weapons labs, which is something western fact checkers have vehemently denied. But when asked whether or not those lab existed inside the country, Nuland did not deny their existence. She called them "biological research facilities" as if that's nothing to worry about before explaining the concern that, as she said, "Russian troops . . . may be seeking to gain control of" the facilities.
Marco Rubio, who asked the question at the hearing, hopped back into the conversation.
"If there's a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians that are behind it?" Rubio asked. Nuland agreed.
"There's no doubt in my mind, senator."
As to what those facilities are specifically for remains unclear while Russia claims the development of biological weapons is occurring.
The United States Department of Defense, on the other hand, has claimed the U.S. has been working with Ukraine since 2005 to convert Soviet-era facilities safely. However, that came without evidence—other than the Pentagon’s claim of a pinkie promise—while also sticking with the assertion that Russia is the one solely using "disinformation." In fact, they outright professed that it's the Russians who might use a chemical attack.
The immediate response to Nuland's telling of some variation of the truth was to cast aside concerns. Still, Nuland said what she said.
Those facilities in Ukraine are funded by the U.S., the European Union, and the World Health Organization. The intent, according to the WHO, is to work to mitigate the threats of diseases and to aid Ukraine with security protocols to prevent "accidental or deliberate release of pathogens."
As journalist Richard Medhurst asked: "If they're only investigating pathogens in these US-funded bio-labs, then why does Nuland care if they fall into Russian hands? What's the big deal?"
The reason for the facilities remain unclear, but the attempts to try and spin this as a “look out for Russia” moment after considerable denial of their existence points towards an uncertain path forward.
One thing is clear: any sort of escalation that has anything to do with biological or chemical facilities would be a shortcut to global tragedy.
The fact these facilities still exist, that these dangers exist, should be reason enough to commit to peace.
Meanwhile, Kiev remains desperate for NATO involvement. They are therefore desperate for the kind of far-reaching conflict that will implicate the lives of many more. Playing with any sort of opportunity for intense escalation instead of agreeing to the requests that would initiate a ceasefire is blatantly counterintuitive to the wellbeing of the world.
Going forward with the economic war, the arming of insurgencies, and the stoking of tensions between nuclear powers is making way for more losses of life, more violence, and more incoherence as the world's power structure shifts.
This is no good for anyone.
The mindless calls to stand up for Ukrainians by urging no-fly zones, flirting with a global recession, setting up for decades-long turmoil in the region, and heeding no caution regarding nuclear weapons and other universal hazards are bad for the world. Supposed reasons for supporting such moves are said to be in defense of freedom and democracy, but they are just defenses for U.S.-western hegemony.
While The Huxleyan intends to remain free to the public, there are paid subscription offers (which would be more of a donation than receiving access to anything in particular) at $5/month, or $45/year. As always, donations are welcome and appreciated via Venmo (@john-pongratz). Again, as those are just options, everything remains free. Thank you for reading and be sure to subscribe, comment, and share!