Rehearsing
for World War III
Operation “Anakonda 16” is a dangerous provocation
By Justin Raimondo
June 08, 2016
"Information
Clearing House"
- "Antiwar"
- As
I write this, US troops are building a bridge across
Poland’s Vistula river, and conducting a nighttime
helicopter assault to secure the eastern part of the
country against a Russian assault.
Has World
War III started? Well, not quite yet, although it’s
not for want of trying.
This is
Operation “Anakonda
16.” Thirty-one thousand troops, 14,000 of them
American, are conducting war games designed to
secure an Allied victory in World War III. The
exercises
involve “100 aircraft, 12 vessels and 3,000
vehicles,” and precede the upcoming NATO summit,
which is expected to approve the stationing of yet
more troops – mostly Americans – in eastern Europe.
NATO claims
this is all strictly “defensive” in nature, designed
to deter Russian “aggression” – but who is the real
aggressor?
It is the
Western powers who, ever since the fall of the USSR,
have pushed eastward relentlessly, expanding the
“defensive” NATO alliance to include such useless
nonentities as Albania and Montenegro, and even
extending “associate” status to distant
Georgia. Their policy has been to eliminate the
buffer between NATO and Russia, absorbing previously
neutral Ukraine into the Western orbit by means of a
violent coup d’etat, and launching a propaganda war
that targets Russian President Vladimir Putin as the
second coming of Stalin.
The Russian
reaction has been to reverse Nikita Khrushchev’s
1954
decision to hand Crimea to Ukraine,
pull out of a treaty limiting the number of
troops in Europe, launch a military
build up on their borders, and upgrade their
nuclear arsenal to parallel a
similar effort by the US.
With the
collapse of international communism, the need for
NATO was obviated, and yet – like any and all
government programs – it not only persisted, it
expanded. Complementing the idea of “Greater Europe”
and the creation of the European Union, the
NATO-crats enlarged the original “defensive” vision
that was supposedly the rationale for the alliance
and embarked on an ambitious program that involved
the creation of a permanent military architecture
which inevitably sought to absorb real estate in the
east. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the
Baltic states – all eventually joined NATO’s ranks
as Moscow looked on in alarm. As the “war on
terrorism” commenced, NATO became the instrument of
Western military operations in the Middle East,
sending its
tentacles into the former Soviet republics of
Central Asia and insinuating itself into the
Caucasus region.
From a cold
war policy of containment, US/NATO has since moved
into regime change mode: the idea is to encircle
Russia militarily, while using “soft power” to
undermine pro-Russian regimes in Russia’s periphery
and eventually achieve regime change in Russia
itself. The Ukrainian operation was an example of
the “soft power” approach: utilizing Western-funded
“civil society” groups, they succeeded in evicting
the democratically elected government from office
and installing one handpicked in Washington. With
the imposition of sanctions, and the continued
encirclement of Russia, the idea is to squeeze the
Russian bear until he either gives up or collapses.
Which is why “Anakonda” – an iteration of the giant
snake that crushes its victims to death and then
devours them – is truly an evocative name.
As is usual
with the regime-changers in Washington, they
approach their task with little or no understanding
of their intended victim. In Iraq and Afghanistan,
they thought they could destroy the regime, and then
create a Middle Eastern version of Kansas. It didn’t
work out that way – but our political class is
incapable of learning the lessons of experience.
In the case
of Russia, they believe that a Russian collapse
would have to mean the ascension to power of a
figure much like the late Boris Yeltsin, who was
too drunk to resist the incursions of Western
power most of the time, and went along with the
marginalization of his country without too many
protests. However, the memory of the Yeltsin era is
abhorred by the Russian people, who saw their
country plundered by the oligarchs, and their
standard of living fall into a veritable abyss,
while Russia was pushed around on the international
stage like a freshman pledge on fraternity row.
What the
NATO-crats want is a “pro-Western” figurehead in
power in Russia, but what they don’t get is that
Putin is as pro-Western as they come in the
current political milieu. His main opponent in the
election that brought him to power was the
virulently anti-Western Communist Party, which he
handily defeated, with the even more anti-Western
Russian nationalists coming in third.
Initially,
Putin sought to include Russia in “Greater Europe,”
and he proposed an agreement with NATO to ensure
that Europe would be a “common
space.” Yet his initiatives to create an
inclusive Europe were met with implacable hostility
by the Western powers, who rejected the idea that
Russia would be treated as an equal and insisted on
the primacy of NATO and the EU. This set up the
present standoff, in which the countries of the
former Warsaw Pact were forced to choose between
Brussels and Moscow.
If and when
the West succeeds in collapsing the Russian economy
and taking down Putin, it won’t be a Yeltsin-like
figure who will inherit the ruins. What comes after
Putin, in this context, is something much worse. And
in that case, the prospect of war will loom large on
the horizon.
If Hillary
Clinton gets into the White House, you can be sure
the tensions with Russia will reach fever pitch. She
has
compared Putin to Hitler – always the signal
that we are about to embark on yet another crusade –
and her
neoconservative supporters are eager to restart
the cold war. The great danger is that a cold war
may very well become a hot one – and that raises the
specter that we lived with for half a century, the
very real possibility of a nuclear war.
To compare
Putin to Stalin, or Hitler, is absurd: Russia has
come a long way since the days of the Gulag, when 60
million people were killed and imprisoned. If we
want to push Russia back into the darkness, then the
policy we are presently pursuing is the way to go:
if, however, we want peace, then it’s high time to
disband NATO – which is outdated and expensive –
give up our dreams of regime change in Russia, and
start cooperating with Moscow in solving our mutual
problems.
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of
Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph
Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at
The American
Conservative, and writes a monthly column
for Chronicles. He is the author of
Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost
Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center
for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate
Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of
the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard
[Prometheus Books, 2000]. |