US Goal: (De)colonizing Russia?
Moon of Alabama, within a longer post (The Neocon's Dream - Decolonize Russia, Re-colonize China), draws attention to a symposium being put on by a “commission” of the US government—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission. Here’s the announcement for the “online briefing”:
WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following online briefing:
DECOLONIZING RUSSIA
A Moral and Strategic ImperativeThursday, June 23, 2022
10:00 a.m.Russia’s barbaric war on Ukraine—and before that on Syria, Libya, Georgia, and Chechnya—has exposed the Russian Federation’s viciously imperial character to the entire world. Its aggression also is catalyzing a long-overdue conversation about Russia’s interior empire, given Moscow’s dominion over many indigenous non-Russian nations, and the brutal extent to which the Kremlin has taken to suppress their national self-expression and self-determination.
Serious and controversial discussions are now underway about reckoning with Russia’s fundamental imperialism and the need to “decolonize” Russia for it to become a viable stakeholder in European security and stability. As the successor to the Soviet Union, which cloaked its colonial agenda in anti-imperial and anti-capitalist nomenclature, Russia has yet to attract appropriate scrutiny for its consistent and oftentimes brutal imperial tendencies.
Now, “decolonizing”, taken in the total context of this statement, can only mean: partition. To “decolonize” Russia, based providing for the “national self-expression and self-determination” of “non-Russian nations” currently a part of the Russian Federation can only mean: dismembering the Russian Federation as it currently exists.
Also, please note two additional takeaways. First, the announcement doesn’t speak of a need for Russia to decolonize itself—rather, the implication is that others will decolonize Russia. Second, the further implication is the purpose decolonization is to make Russia “a viable stakeholder in European security and stability.” This means that Russia will be incorporated into the Rules-Based Order of the New World Order. Decolonization of Russia actually means the colonization of Russia by the West, to be mined for its natural resources. The colonization can only proceed if Russia is first decolonized—partitioned, dismembered, defanged, rendered subservient.
To provide a concrete example of what they’re talking about …
Who, you might ask, are these people, this Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe? Is there any reason why Russia should take them seriously? Well:
You can learn more at the link above, but here’s what the site says about the Commissioners (as opposed to the Staff)—follow the link for the names:
The Helsinki Commission consists of 21 Commissioners, 18 of whom come from the U.S. Congress. Nine Senators and nine Representatives – five from the majority and four from the minority in each chamber – are selected by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, respectively. The remaining three Commissioners are appointed by the President of the United States from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce, usually at the Assistant Secretary level.
Is it any wonder that Russia regards the current conflict as an existential conflict against the West, led by the US? And with tensions at just under a boil, why would the US conduct such an “online briefing”?
The operative reality, of course, is that Russia is not going to be decolonized—although the very fact of such an online briefing taking place surely speaks volumes about the madmen who make policy in DC. However, just to make this mentality perfectly clear, we hear from a national security reporter at the WaPo:
NEW: Even if Western arms don't change the battlefield equation, US officials describe the stakes of ensuring Russia doesn't win in Ukraine as so high that they are willing to countenance even a global recession & mounting hunger. From @DanLamothe & me washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
Do we get a vote on this?
The operative reality is that all signals are that Russia has shifted from somewhat minimalist goals in Ukraine to a much more maximalist strategy. From everything I’ve been reading and hearing the following tweet (which precisely reflects my early and often expressed view) represents official Russian thinking. Note that Pomorenko describes this map as representing the minimal outcome that Russia is seeking:
FWIW, I was listening to Alex Mercouris earlier. He compared the Donbass to the Ruhr, in terms of productivity. He stated point blank that the the areas of Ukraine that Russia currently occupies account for 80% of Ukrainian GDP. Without being able to vouch for the exact numbers, I do believe that Mercouris’ comparison is a fair one and that the numbers are probably pretty accurate.
Mercouris was also speaking about the Lithuania situation. He suggested that it’s high time that Lithuanians understood that the US is not about to risk its existence just for the sake of Lithuania—no matter what Article 5 of the NATO treaty says. As it happens, Russia addressed those fantasies today:
Russia warns against Article 5 talk in Kaliningrad standoff - Interfax
MOSCOW, June 22 (Reuters) - A top Russian official warned the West on Wednesday to stop talking about triggering NATO's "Article 5" mutual defence clause in a standoff between Lithuania and Russia.
Moscow has promised practical retaliation that will affect Lithuania's population after the Baltic state blocked the transit of goods subject to EU sanctions from Russia to its Baltic exclave.
"I would like to warn Europeans against dangerous rhetorical games on the topic of conflict," the Interfax news agency quoted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying on Wednesday.
The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday its commitment to Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty - which states that an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on all - was "ironclad".
The US commitment to Article 5 is “ironclad”. However, it reserves the right to its own interpretation of Article 5 within its overall understanding of the Rules-Based Order, in which the US makes the rules. #1, We make the rules. #2, the rules don’t apply to us.
The existence and attitude of this "commission" is absolutely incredible and terrifying. Blatant warmongering against a nuclear power by twisting and/or neglect of relevant facts, an organization partially composed of elected representatives acting outside the bounds of the authority of their offices to advance foreign policy positions and promote war. What's next? How many secret meetings are attended by our representatives during which they make decisions we may never hear about? Is this the way they think our government is supposed to operate? Where is the debate? Where is the opportunity for public input (as Mark questions)? What is the basis for their "reasoning"?
The WaPo article is just as terrifying and disgusting. What motivating force is so strong that these people are willing to cause millions of deaths and destroy countries in order to defeat Russia? It boggles the mind. Is it for the good of the "U.S. and its allies" to destroy the world? Our government is composed of either a large number of idiots or a large number of people who are absolutely evil. God help us.
It really seems like the establishment is going off the deep end vis-a-vis Russia. I was, frankly, OK with driving up Russia's costs for invading Ukraine. Whatever our role was in provoking this, there has to be a high cost to Russia just invading its neighbors, even if those neighbors are ultimately US proxies that Russia feels threatened by. So I was OK with initial assistance, but we've gone far beyond that and are signing up to an endless commitment to support Ukraine.
But this stuff about "decolonizing Russia" is a whole extra layer of crazy. It has me thinking of early comments Russia's ambassador made about how a broken up Russia would represent a threat to its neighbors due to instability. Of course, that's an accurate statement, but I had to wonder why Russia was talking about this--we were just trying to make life difficult for Russia and were not trying to make it disintegrate. Well, here we are now with this symposium going out of its way to confirm the worst of Russia's fears. Russia has repeatedly threatened nuclear war in the event of threats to its survival, and the West just lays it out there and dares them to declare war and resort to nukes. We've even given them a casus belli by blockading Kaliningrad.
WTF is wrong with our leaders?