1. Ukraine: The Last Battle of the 20th Century
When the Soviet Union fell in 1990-91, Washington decided to deliver the final coup de grace to its two main geopolitical rivals: Russia and China. Remove them as “viable societies” and competitors of the world system, as President Eisenhower had defined the supreme objectives of U.S. foreign policy in 1961, in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP): a surprise nuclear attack on the urban centers and industrial targets of Russia and China.
In military terms of the Nazis, a nuclear Blitzkrieg that planned to annihilate 71% of the Russian urban population and 53% of the urban population of China with the aim of achieving the secular dismemberment of Russia and China for the future global society.
2. Washington’s World Domain
The purpose of the SIOP, expressed with brutal clarity in the declassified documents, was “A Surprise Nuclear Attack in order to destroy the will and ability of the Sino-Soviet Bloc to wage war, remove the enemy from the category of a major industrial power, and assure a post-war balance of power favorable to the United States.”
This imperial-totalitarian doctrine has been the unquestionable red script of the policy of all American presidents, since Henry Luce published his famous editorial “The American Century” in 1941 in “Life”, to justify Washington’s entry and its strategic interests, into World War II.
3. Self-destruction of the imperialist American Century
When Soviet Socialism imploded (1991), Washington decided to use two major political stratagems to “finish off” its potential global rivals Russia and China: 1. expand its Nato war organization (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO) to the east, as close as possible to Moscow, to dominate Russia militarily; 2. prevent the Russia-China strategic alliance from being reborn, because it would form an invincible regional Power Bloc.
Both strategies have been nipped in the bud by the specific Russian military operation of “denazification” and “demilitarization” of that Eurasian protectorate of Washington, headed by the professional comedian Zelensky, without Washington or its political “lapdogs” in London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw and Brussels being able to prevent it.
Biden’s clandestine contacts with Beijing, requesting that China distance itself from Putin, as the New York Times reported, were not only rejected by the CCP, but the respective information was given to its strategic ally Putin. And, having Russia the most powerful Armed Forces on earth, which would defeat the US army both in the field of strategic weapons and in a conventional war, there is nothing that Western imperialism can do to save its puppet government in Kiev.
4. The Prophesy of Self-Destruction
George Kennan, the most brilliant American strategist of the 20th century, who formulated in 1947 the “containment” strategy to defeat the USSR, observed with horror the unstoppable expansion of US imperialism and its European puppets towards the borders of Russia. In a prophetic article in the New York
Times in 1997, Kennan warned that expansion into Russia “would be the most fateful mistake of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”
And he also foresaw the consequences. NATO’s expansionist program towards Russia, wrote the visionary diplomat, would force Moscow to accept it as a “military fait accompli” finding it imperative to search elsewhere for “guarantees of a secure and hopeful future for themselves.” This search for security and future generated the current strategic alliance with China, whose rules for a new multipolar world order were unveiled by Putin and Xi in their Joint Statement on February 4, 2022, in Beijing.
5. Thirty Years of Washington’s Lies and Aggressions
“NATO will not extend either formally or informally to the East,” was Washington’s commitment in the negotiations on German reunification and the withdrawal of Soviet troops, in 1991, as recorded in multiple documents signed by representatives of the United States, France, Germany and Great Britain which are in the public domain. (See, e.g., the German magazine Der Spiegel, 8/2022). But, as is often the case with the solemn words and commitments of imperialism, the obligations concurred in were not worth the paper on which they were written.
Four years later, in 1995, Washington and NATO, under the command of President Bill Clinton, bombed Serbian forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A thousand warplanes conducted more than 38,000 airstrikes (sic) against Serbian forces, from bases in Italy and Germany and U.S. warships in the Mediterranean, without any authorization from the United Nations Security Council. That is, a clear act of war of aggression and violation of international law.
In March 1999, Bill Clinton and NATO carried out a new bombing campaign against Serbia, creating the brand-new state of “Kosovo” in 2008, which today is nothing more than a logistical center of U.S. Pentagonism and international drug trafficking.
Already in 2004, the imperialist war organization had made a qualitative leap towards the Russian borders, with the acceptance of seven countries of Central and Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. In 2008, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic also joined. A year later Albania and Croatia followed and from 2017 to 2020 Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia joined NATO.
In this way, the war organization, supposedly established for the defense of the North Atlantic (NATO), grew from its 12 founding members in 1949 to 30 as of today, five of whom share borders with Russia: Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania and Norway, flagrantly violating at every step the agreements contracted with Russia in 1990-91 and the elementary security interests of this world power. All of President Putin’s warnings about the dangers of NATO’s Eastern Eurasian expansionism, for example, his early warning at the Muenchen Security Conference in 2007, were ignored by Washington. Thus, unstoppably the imperialist cancer approached Russia’s national security red lines, just as Kennan had foreseen.
6. Kennedy and Putin
In October 1962, President John F. Kennedy notified the American citizens that there were Soviet nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba and that he had decided on a naval blockade around the island and military readiness to neutralize this “threat to national security.” For 13 days the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, until Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev offered to withdraw the missiles in exchange for Washington promising not to invade Cuba and to withdraw (secretly) U.S. missiles from Turkey.
The functional equivalent of this agreement for Ukraine is the Minsk Agreement and the declaration of Ukraine´s neutrality. But, neither the Ukrainian oligarchy nor the US military-industrial complex, which manages and oversees Washington’s international policy, had the slightest intention whatsoever of using these available mechanisms of détente, because they needed a military confrontation with Russia to kill the Nord Stream 2 energy cooperation and hopefully, manage to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing in their increasingly successful attempt to build a new multipolar world order.
7. Cuba and Ukraine
The military reason put forward by Kennedy is known in the military sciences as “the strategic depth” necessary for the defense of a country, a case that was not given by the proximity of Cuba with Miami (90 miles). It is the same reason that forced Putin to carry out the specific military operation in Ukraine, because the requested integration of the failed state Ukraine NATO; the military aggression against Donbass and Luhansk after the 2014 Euromaidan colour counter-revolution; the discrimination and repression of the 8 million Russian citizens and the systematic sabotage of the Minsk Agreements of the same year; the growing weight of neo-Nazi tendencies and forces and the intense deployment of imperialist weapons and trainers, generated a strategic threat to Russia’s national security, which no responsible Russian president could ignore. Because it affected a military concept of life and death for the defense of the nation: “the strategic depth” of Russian space that had saved the country in the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler. Strictly speaking, the same war argument that Kennedy used in his naval blockade of Cuba.
8. Putin and the Color Counterrevolution
In short: Putin’s “special military operation” to defend the people of Donbass from an imminent general offensive by the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev — which has claimed 13,000 lives in the region since the 2014 Color Revolution, the lumpen-oligarchic coup d’état funded with $5 billion dollars from Washington (Victoria Nuland dixit) — not only is it fully justified in international law by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, but it is fully consistent with the military praxis and doctrine of the legitimate self-defense of States in the face of an imminent threat emanating from a neighboring State or enemy forces.
9. Secular War against Russia and China
Despite the systematic campaign of lies by the bourgeois disinformation media, it is clear that the conflict in Ukraine is part of a secular war of aggression of Western imperialism against Russia and China, which began in 1918 with the US military invasion against the Russian Revolution, which was defeated by the Red Army in Siberia.
And that continues today with the attempt to dismember Russia through bellicose war expansionism of NATO and China through the attempt to organize a coup d’état against President Xi Jinping, as publicly requested by the media of Rupert Murdoch and George Soros.
This secular imperialist war is destined to fail, as long as Russia and China continue to maintain their defensive strategic alliance against the aggressors.
Defending this alliance is the task of every person who seeks to overcome the era of post-truth and the American Century, which block the emancipative pathways of human mankind.
Heinz Dieterich or Heinz Dieterich Steffan is a German sociologist and a political analyst residing in Mexico. He is better known for his leftist ideals. He contributes to several journals and has published more than 30 books about conflict in Latin America, global society and the ideological controversies that characterised the 20th century, among other philosophical and social scientific topics.
This article was produced by Paul Cockshott.