On American imperialism and colonial instincts – the hidden motives behind global leadership

Why isn’t Kiev acting properly under the Normandy Four (Germany, Russia, Ukraine and France) agreement?

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about Ukraine at the White House in Washington, July 21, 2014 (photo credit: REUTERS)
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about Ukraine at the White House in Washington, July 21, 2014
(photo credit: REUTERS)
The longer it takes to resolve the Ukraine conflict and the harder Kiev tries not to comply with the Minsk agreements, the more often the issue comes up of the special role played by the United States in starting this military and political gamble.
Why isn’t Kiev acting properly under the Normandy Four (Germany, Russia, Ukraine and France) agreement? “[Ukrainian President Petro] Poroshenko breached virtually everything he agreed to” in Minsk, Stephen Lendman writes on the website thepeoplevoice.org, and assumes that this has something to do with an “order from Washington.”
Meanwhile, the ultimate goal of the US remains unknown. It continues to dictate the course of action not only to Ukraine but to the European Union as well. Nothing stops it, neither accusations of interfering with European politics nor the eroding reputation of the leaders of the two EU member states who participated in signing the Minsk agreements. It’s hard not to get the feeling that the US needs bloodshed in Donbass to continue in order to achieve something that really matters to it.
Yes, access to the riches of Eurasia through the window of Ukraine, as well as deploying new military bases there, are part of the US plan. However, thinking about how shamelessly it put pressure on the EU regarding sanctions on Russia, and how it is now “pummeling” Europe regarding arms supplies to Kiev, one realizes that the US is marking time for a reason: America needs these drawn-out illegal sanctions and media hysteria to get away with its economic plunder.
See the latest opinion pieces on our page
Its ultimate goal is not bringing a bright future to the Ukrainian people as European citizens, but signing a tough and comprehensive economic agreement with the EU, where Europe seems to be assigned the role of a junior partner.
In addition to the two-decades-old NAFTA treaty between the US, Mexico and Canada, two other major draft treaties are being heavily promoted, namely, a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the EU and a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) involving 12 Pacific nations. What’s wrong with that? Every power wants to have more markets and trading partners. However, the parties prefer not to advertise information about the upcoming treaties.
Millions of Europeans signed a petition against TTIP for a reason. Only under pressure from the European community (more than a year after the approval of the corresponding mandate of the European Commission) did they manage to obtain at least some details about the behind-the-scenes transatlantic negotiations.
A year ago, talks revealed serious disagreements between the parties. Now, they are talking about plans to reach an agreement by late 2015, although the list of issues is long. The most dangerous aspect has to do with getting into a trap of new restrictions, which will be extremely painful for Europeans. It is also about a major decline in the role of the WTO: it’s hard to imagine a “peaceful coexistence” between several major trade associations, which account for a significant portion of the global GDP.
Both projects have come under severe criticism, not only in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region but in the United States as well. In Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, people are rightfully concerned about the future of entire segments of their respective national economies, which will be dominated by more powerful US industries. The apprehensions voiced by the US (Congress) are more political in nature. Are there any doubts about the ability of the US to promptly make its partners support the “right” decision and to time it to the 2016 US presidential elections? Once both new partnerships become active, the WTO may be held hostage to privately developed trade and investment rules. This could lead to a deep crisis. The crisis could affect political relations between countries and continents that will see new types of economic ties imposed on them regarding which they were never consulted.
History has taught us the sad consequences of the desire of certain economic powers to redistribute the economic wealth of our planet and “change the world” to suit their ideas about it. Those past ambitions didn’t come from nowhere, either. Their roots date back to colonial times. If someone thinks that the last turf wars between former colonial powers ended centuries ago, they should think again. Military invasions in various parts of the world even now are often motivated by a desire to control a particular area of the world. It was once referred to as “neocolonialism,” but is now called “hegemony” or, more euphemistically, “leadership.” However, the goal remains the same.
Of course, it is much easier to take things away than to build something new. It’s easier to steal than to work. It’s cheaper to feed an army than a whole nation, and then use the army to conquer some land that is rich in oil, gas and other resources, and then turn this devastated and blood-soaked country into another raw materials or industrial appendage. This is nothing short of medieval barbarity, whatever democratic rhetoric or media coverage may accompany it.
An ever-increasing number of conflicts flaring up in different parts of the world, often triggered by provocations from abroad, show that colonial instincts didn’t go away. They have come back with a vengeance in some political gamblers from Europe, and have become the core of the geopolitical strategy of the United States. Almost all of Europe is now acting obediently in military affairs, and is largely under control in the sphere of politics as well. Trade and finance will follow.
We, the citizens of European countries, must draw practical conclusions from this state of affairs, which will form an important basis for reuniting our forces in our fight for a just world order based on the rule of law. Our brethren Ukrainians must think about the true role assigned to their country by an overseas director, for whom the tragedy of their Motherland is not even a supporting role, but rather a mere cameo. The number of casualties doesn’t matter. By Hollywood standards, an ocean of blood is the typical environment for the remarkable feats of the main character.
The author is the speaker of the State Duma (lower house of the Russian Parliament).