Fifth Wheel for the ‘Normandy’ Format

The primary threat to peace comes once again from across the ocean: You see, the Europeans dared to do without the involvement of the Americans, and the latter can’t accept that they have suddenly ended up on the sidelines of the peace process. It doesn’t square whatsoever with the future plans of the U.S. military-industrial complex or the zeal of “exceptionalism” that the country’s senior leadership continues to exude.

The agreement by the “quartet” messes up the plans of a fifth behind-the-scenes player. I think it’s here that it’s worth seeking out the reasons for what would seem to be illogical and untimely moves by the U.S., moves like the training of Ukrainian soldiers by instructors from the U.S., the constant talk about delivering lethal weapons to Ukraine — perhaps the topic is no longer limited to talk — the extension of anti-Russian sanctions for a year right off the bat and the corresponding pressure on the European Union.

Sanctions, oddly enough, are one of the weakest, rather than strongest, points of contemporary American policy. President Obama has already said that new sanctions against Iran would mean that “diplomacy has failed.” Besides, he himself proposed lifting the economic embargo against Cuba. His reservations, spoken aloud at that, are simply ridiculous; they once again bore witness to the crisis of the American government’s ideology, an ideology that contradicts all realities of the 21st century. It didn’t work to try to nicely close the matter, and the very same ideological obstacles await the next U.S. president if he doesn’t come up with a fundamentally different foreign policy doctrine, one that would rescue the government from its shameful habit of plugging the holes in the budget by ravaging other countries.

In my recent article (“Komsomolskaya Pravda,” Feb. 20), I’ve already written that the regular U.S. “forays” into various regions of the world are aimed first and foremost at financial and economic acquisition. It doesn’t matter what they’re called, whether annexations or indemnities, but these never-ending plundering raids are one of the historical “reproduction means” of the American state system itself. Wild, barbaric and anciently imperialistic, it remains unchanged. Except now they are painstakingly “perfecting” the methods of information intimidation and coordinated pressure against an international bureaucracy where first fiddle is also played by Western media lies and fake news stories set in motion on an Internet that is under control.

We won’t forget that operating under the umbrella of so-called Euro-Atlantic organizations is a great army of American officials who push through decisions that are advantageous for the state department, constantly forgetting that their salaries are being paid by European taxpayers. I say this having more than once been confronted with the fruits of their “shuttle” work in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and other similar organizations. And now I see something similar in the attempts to reinterpret and revise the results of the Minsk agreement. What do you know, the infamous “fifth wheel”...

But let’s get back to where we started. In his recent speech, as in previous speeches, Mr. Obama made the point that the U.S. should combine military might with diplomacy, calling it a “smart use of power.” Even North American observers themselves, by the way, give evidence of a persistent habit of employing coercive scenarios. Just recently, in early March, they figured out that in the 239 years of its existence, the U.S. was not at war for only two decades (news site “Axis of Logic.”) Yes, in a bit over two centuries they’ve had wars of every kind, just wars and civil wars, but as the authors put it, “technically” all of America’s leaders can be considered “war presidents.” From the examples in this century, they mention aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Apparently this is just another of America’s “birthmarks,” seeing as hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties is quite a reasonable price for a “smart use of power.”

Affirming their historic experience, the current U.S. power elite — regardless of party affiliation — are purposely demonstrating their readiness for military operations anywhere in the world. But now, thanks to their efforts, the European continent has become a “hot spot.” Even if the U.S. didn’t decide to enter into the internal Ukrainian conflict outright, it did everything it could to make it come about, quickly flare up, and take longer to fade. At the same time they tried yet again to pin their credo of aggressor on another country.

No, we’re not surprised that European politicians are trying to maneuver between the instructions from across the ocean and the aspiration to at least sometimes demonstrate their independence. What surprises us is something else — their attempt to emulate America in the now failed tactic of capturing a “zone of influence.” You have to agree that it’s hard not to notice such ambitions with respect to nearby Ukraine. Maybe they’ve forgotten that such a tactic only works from afar, at a safe distance, and that “exceptionalism” is the watchword of American ideology? And that “exceptionalism” implies only a single nation and by no means dozens of nations, much less nations torn apart by new contradictions? But then to Mr. Obama’s advisers, such a moment seemed opportune to try their luck at making all of Europe their “zone.”

U.S. foreign policy, thoroughly saturated with national egoism and militarism with gigantic military budgets, is a practical consequence of the theory of exceptionalism. Unfortunately, it’s not the only consequence. We recall the secret CIA prisons where, without trial or investigation — not to mention legal assistance — the necessary confessions are beaten out under torture. There’s even the practice of kidnapping foreign nationals from third countries to bring charges against them in American courts with dubious evidence obtained through provocations. And total surveillance over the entire world, including listening in on the German chancellor’s telephone conversations? How’s that for “soft power” in boxing gloves? Finally, the death penalty is still legal in a number of states, a fact which for some reason doesn’t terribly bother humanitarian Europe, so displeased by Russia’s “half-measures” in the form of a moratorium on its use.

Honestly, I really didn’t understand what Mr. Obama meant when he said that going forward the U.S. intends to show the whole world “an example of its values.” Does he refer to the facts outlined above as such “values” or does he, like his diplomats, coyly leave them out of the equation? He probably thinks it’s not so important. After all, “exceptionalism” implies a priori a policy of anything goes. Who would dare reproach the irreproachable?!

As I recall, there have already been leaders in history who tried to run things using similar schemes. With values that bound the nation together, they loudly declared what subsequently became the subject of an investigation by an international tribunal and since then has no statute of limitations. Isn’t it strange that in the year of the 70th anniversary of the World War II victory, the current government of an allied country should prefer to forget about this? ... I’ll say this: It’s truly a shame.