Voices from Russia

Thursday, 16 February 2017

16 February 2017. Be Careful What You Wish For Department…

00-mexico-1848-140217

____________________________________

The reason that so many Mexicans live in the American Southwest is that the region is really Northwest MEXICO. The USA stole the region as the result of a war of aggression that occurred after the Texas slavers staged a revolt in 1836 (the Mexicans were going to force them to liberate their slaves and the Texas racists didn’t want that at all). Mexico has never given up its claim to its ancient territory. Do think on that when you hear the demented “conservatives” rant on and on.

Be careful what you wish for… you may get it, and in its fullness. Have a care…

BMD

Monday, 3 March 2014

Crimea as the Russian Texas

00 crisis. 01 Simferopol. 03.03.14

Pro-Russia protesters hold a banner reading, “Russia won’t forget us! Crimea was and will be Russian!” outside the Supreme Soviet of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea in Simferopol

­­­­­­______________________________

The situation unfolding in Crimea has a counterpart, a historical analogue… Texas. A comparison of Crimea with Texas will prove the relative similarities between the two, arguing that if one accepts the current status of Texas despite its controversial origin, then they are more than obliged to recognise the future status of the Crimea, since historical evolution there have more legitimacy than those which transpired in Texas over 150 years ago.

Originally, Texas was part of México from 1821-1836. Prior to independence, American frontiersmen rapidly colonised the region and soon outnumbered the native inhabitants. Eventually, they agitated for independence from México and wanted to join the USA. Performing a structural analysis, one can see strong parallels between the American demographic deluge in Texas and the Albanian one in Serbia over a century later (which took slightly longer to do). In both cases, non-native citizens overwhelmed the local inhabitants and pursued separatist motives against the central government. Primarily based on self-identification, the Americans in Mexican Texas and Albanians in Kosovo didn’t feel part of the states they’d moved to, and they thus enacted provocations against those respective governments. Through a downward spiralling series of events, war broke out and both entities would later become independent. Texas earned its own independence, whereas Kosovo depended on the 19 then-members of NATO to sever it from Serbia. Texas would later be absorbed into the USA per the American domestic legal framework to do so (which incidentally triggered the most geographically expansive war in North American history in 1846), whilst Kosovo was NATO’s first out-of-theatre war and remains “independent” of Albania and its EU/NATO patrons in name only.

The situation is somewhat similar in Crimea, yet at the same time, altogether different. Certainly, there are more Russians living there than Ukrainians and Tatars, as there came to be more Americans in Texas and Albanians in Kosovo, but it wasn’t the result of a demographic deluge. The Russians in Crimea lived there for centuries ever since Yekaternia Velikaya liberated it from Turkish suzerainty in 1774 (two years before the American Declaration of Independence). Crimea remained a part of the Russian state in some form or another until 1954, when Nikita Khrushchyov, the ethnic Ukrainian leader of the USSR, unilaterally handed it over to the Ukrainian SSR. At the time, its movement from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR was simply administrative, as both entities were part of the USSR. As such, the ethnic Russians there did not feel separate from the state, but rather retained their affinity towards the governing centre.

In 1991, the Russian majority in the Crimea found themselves in a foreign country with the unexpected collapse of the USSR and the Ukraine’s independence. Nonetheless, they didn’t agitate for independence or union with Russia because they retained their rights within the state and they had a shared historical memory stretching back over 300 years. They may not have felt “Ukrainian”, but they didn’t feel strong enough about this self-identification disconnect to secede from the country. It wasn’t until the revolutionary fascist coup in Kiev and the later discrimination, violence, and threats thereof by unelected coup-ocrats against ethnic Russians that questions of seceding on the grounds of humanitarian rights arose. Unlike the Kosovo scenario, the Russian community hadn’t provoked any violence upon themselves to present the structured narrative that they’re “victimised”. The Ukrainian coup activists initiated the violence on their own volition because of their fascist ideology.

American Texas and Albanian Kosovo fought bloody wars to become independent, but this has yet to occur in the Crimea. A small-scale low-intensity war of self-determination is in force, although it is largely peaceful. Ukrainian military units in Crimea switched their allegiance from the unelected fascist Kiev junta to democratic Simferopol and the region’s security apparatus proclaimed its loyalty to the people, not the putschists. What took blood, iron, and (in Kosovo) bombs to carry out for the American and Albanian community was mostly fulfilled through peaceful means by the Russian one. The residents of Crimea are even planning a referendum for 30 March about the future of their autonomous status, something that didn’t occur in the Texan or Kosovar scenarios. In parallel with Texas, the Crimea could also be legally absorbed into the state that it holds cultural affinity for via proposed Russian domestic legislation addressing addition of new territories.

Thus, the events in Crimea thus have shades of their Texas analogues, albeit with enhanced legitimacy when you compare the two. Americans flooded into Texas over a 15-year period, overwhelmed the locals, and, then, provoked and fought a war of independence. They didn’t hold a democratic referendum to decide their status within México, yet, after the fact of their independence, and their annexation by the USA, no one contests Texas’ status, and all sovereign states recognise it. The tragedy of Kosovo is absolutely illegitimate by all means, and many states rightly don’t recognise that its “independence” is legal. If Texas (with its dubious legitimate grounds for its former independence) can now be recognised as a beacon of American identity and an important part of the country, then the Crimea, through its legitimate actions during the current crisis, surely deserves the same level of recognition. Just as Texas is now a part of the USA and the “American Story”, so too can the Crimea become a part of Russia and the “Russian Story” in the years to come.

3 March 2014

Andrei Korybko

Voice of Russia World Service

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_03/Crimea-as-the-Russian-Texas-9288/

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 24 March 2013

A View from Moscow by Valentin Zorin… The End of the American Empire

01 Fidel Castro and Uncle Sam

______________________________

The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías knocked Washington off-balance and stripped it of confidence. Breaking the traditional rules of diplomatic courtesy, US President Obama refrained from extending condolences to the people and government of Venezuela, unlike the heads of state of most other countries. Those in the American corridors of power must have lost their nerve.

In this case, Chávez’s extraordinary personality didn’t cause this state of affairs; rather, the tectonic policy shift that embodied Chávez’s philosophy devastated the USA. For two centuries, South America provided solid and reliable support for a country whose very name… the United States of America… incorporated claims to speaking on behalf of both parts of the American continent. In 1823, the fifth US President, James Monroe, proclaimed in a message to the US Congress that all territories south of the American border were the USA’s “exclusive sphere of influence”. It’s worth remembering that the text of the so-called Monroe Doctrine stated that the USA would consider any attempt on the part of any other country to interfere militarily or politically in the affairs of any state in the Americas as hostile, a threat to its peace and security. Without any diplomatic frou-frou, Senator Lodge explained the essence of Monroe Doctrine by saying, “The American flag must fly over the territory from the Rio Grande to the Arctic”.

The Monroe Doctrine was a guide for several generations of politicians as they replaced one another at the helm of the American state. After World War I, US President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Monroe Doctrine be part of the Covenant of the League of Nations. By using brute force, Washington kept South America under its thumb. After American troops invaded Mexico in 1846, the USA de facto carved that country up {part of it became the south-western USA after the American victory: editor}. Besides that, the USA propped up bloody puppet juntas in Central America like those of General Anastasio Somoza García in Nicaragua. US President Franklin D Roosevelt threw out a famous cynical bon mot concerning him, “Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch”.

After the Second World War, Washington didn’t loosen its iron grip on Latin America; it still held it under its tight control. Subservient Latin American delegations at the UN comprised an infamous “voting machine”; it was one of Washington’s major policy tools in the early years of the Cold War. The Cuban Revolution was the first peal of thunder. The multiple, but unsuccessful, attempts to suppress it marked the beginning of the end for the empire south of the American border. A bloc of states chose to reject Washington’s diktatBrazil’s economic and political weight grew exponentially, Nicaragua broke free, Panama snatched the Panama Canal from America’s grip, and Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela went on to head an anti-American front in Latin America. All this became a nightmare for the proponents of the outmoded Monroe Doctrine. The 200-year-old American Empire is no more, never to return. Judging from their nervousness, the power élite in Washington is unaware or is unwilling to recognise that. So much the worse… for them!

zorin_v19 March 2013

Valentin Zorin

Voice of Russia World Service

http://rus.ruvr.ru/2013_03_19/203903965/

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.