Blaming Russia

Anti-Russian bias seems to be inherent in the Western psyche, and a torrent of criticism recently unleashed against Moscow proves this. The bogey of ‘irredentist Russia’ is almost all over Western media.

The intellectual elite in the advanced capitalist world also asserts that the spectre of an expansionist power is no more a myth but a reality that is haunting not only the smaller states bordering Russia but also those beyond these borders.

Western leaders have been threatening the Eurasian power that has already been reeling under various curbs imposed by the advanced capitalist world with crippling sanctions. Even though such sanctions have always played havoc with the lives of innocent people, the West insists that these actions could deter Russia from carrying out what they call ‘aggression against Ukraine’.

American officials claimed several times during the past four weeks that Moscow could attack Ukraine any time and cited intelligence reports to back up their claims, ignoring that it was the same intelligence agencies that concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Such a conclusion led to the US-Iraq war, resulting in the loss of more than two million people besides plunging the country into a sectarian frenzy, which tore its social fabric. British leaders also made similar claims, relying on the intelligence reports that prompted Tony Blair to assert that Iraq could target the UK ‘within hours’. Although Blair’s claims turned out to be fictitious, the damage had already been done to Iraqi society.

Western countries also intervened in Syria and Libya on false excuses, besides throwing support behind jihadi and sectarian elements that destroyed the lives of millions of people in the two countries. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives in Syria alone, and the country also suffered heavy financial losses of over $200 billion. Libya also suffered because of this Western intervention; the country with one of the best human development indicators in Africa now stands in ruins. Its infrastructure is in shambles; its society stands divided along sectarian and tribal lines, and its regions have emerged as one of the world’s biggest hubs of human trafficking, smuggling and piracy.

It is not only Russia that is sceptical towards these Western claims of a possible invasion but also Kyiv which is desperate to join Nato. Perhaps the Ukrainian leadership is well aware of the fate of Iraq, Libya and Syria, which is why Kyiv rejected Western calls to shut down its air space. It seems that Western propaganda has benefited Russia more than Ukraine.

Rising oil prices may have helped some Arab states make huge profits, but have also helped Moscow increase its revenue. Provocative statements by Western leaders and sabre-rattling by Nato will only harm the Ukrainian economy that is already reeling under the effects of rising military tensions. It seems that Western powers are more interested in this conflict than Kyiv, which is making every possible effort to ease the tension.

It is not only the Western intellectual elite who is holding Russia responsible for the current crisis that is fast engulfing Europe, but many independent observers are also lambasting Moscow for inciting the tension. Western propaganda is so intense that even independent analysts do not want to consider Russian security concerns. They are ignoring the fact that Russia was attacked more than three times by the West, which created paranoia among Russians about the spectre of such invasion in the future. The past invasions have made Russians overcautious over the developments or military buildups on their western borders.

Since 1945, Moscow has thought of retaining a buffer between mainland Russia and Europe. During the cold war, central and eastern European states served as this buffer. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, these states were encouraged to first join the European Union and then Nato. Moscow was already wary of these developments. Russians claim that they were held out assurances that the eastward expansion of the military alliance would not be carried out, but to the utter surprise of Moscow, not only these states were assimilated into the alliance but the West also reached the Russian backyard by orchestrating Machiavellian policies.

It staged several ‘colour revolutions’ in Russia, dislodging governments that were friendly towards Moscow. During the 1990s, the West took various decisions that infuriated the Eurasian power. Russians believe that London, Paris and Washington hatched conspiracies for the breakup of Yugoslavia while simultaneously turning a blind eye towards terrorist activities in some of Russia’s Muslim-majority regions.

Russian nationalists think that the West took advantage of a weak Russian position during the 1990s when its economy was in ruins. The West did not take Moscow into confidence over the decisions that had global ramifications, and Russia continued to be treated as an aging global power, irrelevant in the 21st century.

Russia showed its anger when the West insisted that Ukraine should join Nato. Political analysts may criticise Russia for adopting an aggressive policy in the Crimea matter, but it should be noted that a Russia-friendly elected government was dislodged through West-backed demonstrations and protests. Moscow considered such a change of government as another colour revolution that was meant to circle the second biggest military power. Many Russians believe that the action of Moscow in Crimea was triggered by the pro-West new government’s encouragement of fascist elements. Such encouragement could have led to the persecution of the Russians living in parts of Ukraine. This, in reality, provided Russia with an excuse to back separatist Russians living in Ukraine.

Having said that, Russian claims over Crimea cannot be accepted under international laws as they undermine the sovereignty of an independent country. Also, Ukraine must understand Russian security concerns that cannot be called ‘utterly baseless’ as they have historical evidence and carry some weight. The West might insist that every country should be able to join military alliances of its choice, but would it extend this right to Latin American countries that it considers its backyard and where it has not allowed any other power to intervene for decades?

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, Soviet influence in the Spanish-speaking belt of the Americas had infuriated Washington, pushing the world to the brink of a third world war. Instead of blaming Moscow for the crisis, the West should come up with a doable solution. All states should admit their mistakes to move forward. The West should admit that it has reneged on its promises by carrying out the eastward expansion of Nato, which was not warranted at all especially after the breakup of the USSR. Such expansion could be described as a move to encircle the giant country.

The West should not only halt such an expansion but also dismantle this military alliance altogether, diverting resources from military spending to the welfare of the people. In return, Moscow should give up its hegemonic policies, respect the sovereignty of weaker states and enter into agreements with such states assuring them of territorial integrity.

The writer is a freelancejournalist who can bereached at:

egalitarianism444@gmail.com