The Colonizers’ Instincts, or the Story behind Global Leadership

The longer a resolution to the Ukraine conflict drags on and the more persistently Kiev avoids carrying out the Minsk agreement, the more often the topic of a special U.S. role in the disentanglement of this political-military adventure crops up. Why isn’t Kiev carrying out the agreement by the “Normandy Four?” “Poroshenko breached virtually everything he agreed to” in Minsk, writes Stephen Lendman at Thepeoplesvoice.org, speculating that this has to do with “orders from Washington.” Meanwhile, the ultimate U.S. aims are still not fully laid bare. It continues to dictate a course of action not only to Ukraine but to the E.U. as well. It isn’t deterred by accusations of interfering in Europe-wide policy or by the fact that the reputations of the leaders of the two leading E.U. countries who took part in concluding the Minsk agreement are melting before our very eyes. It’s hard to escape the feeling that the U.S. needs a continuation of the bloodshed in the Donbass in order to achieve something important for itself.

Yes, access to the riches of Eurasia through the Ukrainian “window,” along with placing new military bases there, is in U.S. plans. But recalling how unblushingly it pressured the E.U. over the anti-Russian sanctions and how it “pummels” them over the issue of supplying arms to Kiev, you understand: It’s knowingly making up for lost time. America needs a prolonged sanctions epic in violation of international law and an atmosphere of information hysteria to continue its economic plunder with impunity. Its ultimate goal is by no means a bright pan-European future for Ukrainian citizens, but the forging of a rigid and all-embracing economic agreement with the E.U. where Europe, it seems, is assigned the role of junior partner.

In addition to the NAFTA accord (among the U.S., Mexico, and Canada) that has already been in effect for two decades, now two more major agreements are being strenuously pushed forward — with the E.U. in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and in the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 12 of the region’s countries. What’s wrong with that? Every power wants to have new markets and more trading partners. But they don’t like to advertise information about the agreements that are being prepared, and it’s for good reason a million Europeans have signed a petition against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It was only under pressure from the European public (more than a year after the approval of the relevant mandate by the European Commission) that it was possible to get at least some details of the backroom transatlantic negotiations.

A year ago, the negotiations brought to light serious disagreements by the two sides. Now they say the intention is to reach an agreement by the end of 2015, although the points of contention are hard to enumerate. But the most dangerous thing is falling into the trap of new and extremely rigid (for the Europeans) restrictions. And also a serious decline in the role of the WTO: It’s difficult to imagine the “peaceful coexistence” of several major trade blocs that account for a significant portion of global GDP. Both projects have come under a great deal of criticism, not only in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, but even in the U.S. In the case of the former, there are valid concerns over the fate of whole segments of national economies that will fall under pressure from the more powerful U.S. industry. In the case of the latter, the objections (in the U.S. Congress) are more political in nature. But is it worth doubting the ability of the U.S. to quickly push its partners to the required decision, let’s say, right around the U.S. presidential elections, to be held in 2016?

As a result of the opening of the two new zones, the WTO might end up a hostage to trade and investment rules formulated in secret. This has the potential to lead to a profound crisis, including a crisis in political relations between countries and continents, upon whom standards of economic ties that no one discussed with them will be imposed. We know from history what sad consequences have been brought about by the desire of individual powers to redistribute the planet’s economic wealth and remake the world in imitation of their own conception of it. But after all, those ambitions didn’t grow from empty space – their roots were sent forth as long ago as in colonial times. And don’t anyone think that the final dismantling of former colonial powers ended centuries ago; it isn’t so. Military invasions in various regions of the world even now are often motivated by a desire to establish control over this or that part of the globe. What was once called “neocolonialism” is now “hegemonism” or, even more pleasant sounding, “leadership.” The essence remains the same.

Needless to say, it’s a whole lot simpler to cull out than to create something new. It’s easier to steal than to start working. It’s cheaper to feed an army than an entire nation, and then with the army’s help, conquer lands rich with foreign oil, gas and other resources. And to build from spilled blood and a decimated country a new raw-materials or industrial appendage. But this is medieval barbarity, no matter what sort of democratizer’s rhetoric and information-veil accompany it. The ever-increasing conflicts in various regions of the planet that arise at times from external provocations show that the colonizer’s instincts are here to stay. They are surfacing with renewed vigor even among some political adventurers from the European continent, while for the U.S. they have become the backbone of a geopolitical strategy. The obedience of almost all of Europe in military affairs has already been achieved; in political affairs as well much is under control. Trade and finance are up next.

We, the citizens of European states, need to draw practical conclusions from this that are important for a new joining of forces for a just world order based on law. And our Ukrainian brothers need to begin to think about the real role their country has been assigned by the “director” from across the ocean. After all, for the director, the tragedy of their homeland is not even a supporting role, but just a walk-on one. And the number of victims isn’t important here. By Hollywood’s standards, a sea of blood is but a familiar backdrop for the feats of the lead character.

The author is Chairman of the State Duma