September 23, 2022
MY CORNER by Boyd
Cathey
The Fundamental
Ideological Question at Stake in Ukraine
Friends,
Since the Russian incursion into Ukraine on February 24, the
American and Western European media have been almost unanimous in pushing the
template which they wish us to believe and the agenda which they wish us to
follow. In the US Congress, as in most deliberative bodies in Western Europe
and in such international entities as the United Nations (UN) and the World
Economic Forum (WEF), the refrain has been almost identically the same: that
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s heroic and noble “liberal democratic” Ukrainian
government stands for and defends “our liberal democratic values,” and that it
has been brutally attacked in an unprovoked assault by the evil Russians under
their evil president—the new “reincarnation of Hitler”—Vladimir Putin, who, of
course, wishes to re-establish the old Soviet Empire which expired thirty-one
years ago.
It's as if nothing has changed since 1991—thirty-one
years ago—when Russian Communism perished in an ignominious death, scorned and
despised by the Russian people. It’s as if no history has elapsed since
then, and that somehow the spectre of Soviet Communism, or some newfangled form
thereof, still critically threatens “the West.” And thus, we must engage in a
new and very dangerous “cold war,” which now in Ukraine turns increasingly
“hot.”
Among establishment “conservatives”—in particular, those we
denominate Neo-conservatives—this refrain finds strong resonance, as well as
among Republican members of the US Congress. It is fascinating, to say the
least, to see a Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell joined at the hip—no
daylight between them—to a Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, as one, zealously advocating
a rapid escalation in American involvement in Ukraine, no matter whether
such offensive actions (e.g., no fly zones, US troops on the ground) might
bring on nuclear Armageddon. Graham and other political leaders seem to welcome
such tactical nuclear exchanges with “acceptable levels of civilian and combat
casualties,” oblivious to what actually would happen.
Most recently this position, intellectually, was presented by
a denizen
of Claremont McKenna College (a western outpost of
Neoconservatism), who proceeded to repeat once more all the standard
interventionist arguments about a “democratic Ukraine,” “Russian world
aggression (neo-Communism?),” and the “American mission” as global guardian
(and enforcer) of “liberal democracy.”
While there has been some dissent from this perspective in the
West (e.g., Tucker Carlson. Colonel Douglas MacGregor, Professor John
Mearsheimer, Jacques Baud, Scott Ritter), the fact remains that almost the
entirety of major news reporting on the Ukrainian conflict comes from reporters
who hang on—and then repeat as undoubted and non-debatable—every word
telegraphed by the Ukrainian government and military information services. While
dozens of Western reporters are embedded with the Ukrainian military, no
representatives of major media facilitate similar reporting from the Russian
perspective. Indeed, both the US and Western European countries have attempted
to stifle or interdict opposing perspectives. Only through either non-Western
media or smaller independent services can any balance usually be obtained.
Thus, in the United States and Western Europe we are bombarded
ceaselessly by lurid tales of “Russian war crimes” and now of “Russian
terrorism,” such that Republican Senator Graham is pushing for Russia to be
labeled a “terror state,” assuredly with “consequences” to follow. Yet, a closer
and deeper investigation into those charges and accusations should cause
concerned Americans to question not only the accounts but the bona fides
of those reporting such purported events.
I have written about the so-called “Russian war crimes” in Mariupol, Bucha, and Kramatorsk earlier
this year, and I urge readers to go back and read those articles and check,
again, the sources. Most recently (August 3), Amnesty International, in a
revealing and perhaps surprising moment of truthful reporting, designated
Ukraine and the Ukrainian military as responsible for war crimes and terror, using
civilians as human shields, including forcing civilians to become
specific targets of the Russian military, something which they did at the steel
plant in Mariupol, although most Western media sources ignore the truth and
still blame the Russians. With a pliant and enthusiastic Western press corps,
the continual flow of Ukrainian propaganda inundates American households at all
hours of the day…and that includes the news branch of Fox News, which may well
be the worst offender.
But prescinding from the geo-political and strategic debate, the
question of war crimes, and the course of military campaigns—whether the
Ukrainians are advancing beyond Kharkov or the Russians successfully defending
Kherson—we need to step back and focus on a more fundamental and ideological question,
which, I submit, must necessarily frame this conflict and how we see it.
Just recently both the traditionalist Catholic journal The
Remnant as well as The Saker published what may be the most concise
and accessible-to-general-readers summary of the conflict in Ukraine, what it actually
means globally and ideologically. The war in Ukraine is indeed a proxy war for
the United States and Western Europe; but its more profound meaning must be
understood and fathomed. For its implications affect the history and the very
foundations of what we have called Western Christian civilization.
The article is titled: “The Conflict Between the West and
Russia is a Religious One,” and the author is Emmet Sweeney, a published
historian and author. I pass it on here below:
The Conflict Between
the West and Russia Is a Religious One
Written by Emmet Sweeney Wednesday, August 24,
2022 |
The
war currently underway in Ukraine—which pits Ukraine as a proxy for the
collective West against Russia—is primarily an ideological or religious one,
with Russia representing what is left of Christian Europe, and “the West”
representing a totalitarian ideology that abhors religion in general and
Christianity in particular. This statement may sound strange, given the fact
that some Westerners – though fewer every day – still see “the West,”
(basically Europe and North America) as Christian, and Russia as Communist, or
crypto-Communist. But this is no longer the case and has not been for some
considerable time. In fact, the thirty years that have passed since the fall of
the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union, have seen a complete reversal
of roles; the collective West is now a totalitarian and aggressively
anti-religious power-block that seeks to export its anti-Christian and
anti-human ideology onto the rest of the world. And Russia is loathed by the
West's ruling elite precisely because it has resisted this process and moreover
has gone in the opposite direction: having once been an active proponent of
“scientific materialism” and atheism, Russia has reverted to its Orthodox
Christian roots and has rolled back the more pernicious policies and attitudes
of the Soviet era.
In order to
demonstrate the truth of this, we need to look at the history of Russia and its
interaction with the West since the early 1990s.
By 1991, when the
Soviet Union was officially abolished, it was clear that the West had won the
Cold War. Russia itself, under its new president Boris Yeltsin, openly
proclaimed the end of all hostilities. Russia's satellites in Eastern Europe
were permitted to go their own way, and autonomous republics within the Soviet
Union were allowed to declare themselves independent countries. The old Soviet
system of state ownership was officially abolished, and almost everything was
privatised. The press and media in general were freed of all censorship and
could now say whatever they wanted. Russia under Yeltsin reached out the hand
of friendship to the West – a gesture that was not reciprocated and ultimately
snubbed by the West.
There seems to be no logical explanation other than to assume an
underlying cultural/religious antipathy towards Russia and her people on the
part of a very large segment of the West's ruling plutocracy.
The euphoria of
1991 soon gave way and the 1990s turned out to be a catastrophic decade for
Russia and her people. First and foremost, the policy of privatisation turned
out to be disastrous. A law was passed which forbade foreigners from buying
Russian utilities and industries; only Russians could do so. Unfortunately,
nobody in Russia, hitherto a Communist country, had any money. However, certain
groups within the country – mainly ethnic Jews – had important and wealthy
connections abroad. These arranged to have funds sent into Russia for the
purpose of purchasing the country's state-owned industries. Desperate for any
dollars and euros it could lay its hands on, the Yeltsin administration sold
these industries for a tiny fraction of their true value. (Russia's natural
resources alone make it potentially one of the wealthiest countries on the
planet). The buyers of said industries became the notorious “oligarchs,” who
systematically plundered the country for almost ten years, in what has been
described as the biggest act of looting in history. Rather than plow some of
the profits back into the businesses, the oligarchs exported almost all of
them, impoverishing both their employees and the country in general. The result
was that large segments of the population began to experience severe hardship.
Many came close to starvation and many died of hypothermia during the bitter
Russian winters. Some state employees were paid in cabbages, and it is
estimated that Russia suffered over five million excess deaths between 1991 and
2000. The majority of these were caused by simple diseases such as influenza,
which developed into pneumonia for want of funds to buy an antibiotic. But
deaths from all causes, including murder, suicide, alcoholism, and drug
addiction, rocketed. Russia was a country falling apart, and the population
began to plummet.
During this time, a
Chechen independence movement, spurred on by funds from Saudi Arabia and
(allegedly) the West, launched a violent campaign against the Russian
authorities. A savage war followed, which claimed tens of thousands of lives,
and eventually resulted in 1997 in Yeltsin's recognition of a semi-independent
Chechnya. Independence movements began to appear in other autnomous regions and
it was clear that Russia itself stood on the verge of disintegration.
During all of this,
the attitude of the West, or of those who control the West, was striking.
Western media, by that time in the hands of a few mega-corporations, was almost
gleeful in its reporting of Russia's trauma. In their suffering, the Russian
people became the butt of the West's shadenfreude.
And it should be borne in mind that it was precisely in the 1990s that American
corporations commenced massive “outsourcing” of their industries to other, and
less expensive, locations. Entire factories, together with their machinery and
technology, were exported en
masse, primarily to China. Almost nothing went to Russia. This in
spite of the fact that China continued to be a Communist and indeed
totalitarian country. Not even the massacre of Tiananmen Square (1989) and the
subsequent brutal repression could halt the American plutocracy's enthusiasm
for exporting work and business. So Russia, which had held out the hand of
friendship to the West, and had permitted the subjugated peoples to go free,
continued to be treated as an enemy, and was effectively plundered by Western
interests, whereas China, which did no such thing, was now treated as a favored
trading and business partner. How to explain such an astonishing disparity?
In parellel with his economic reforms, Putin oversaw a revival of
the Russian Orthodox faith.
There seems to be
no logical explanation other than to assume an underlying cultural/religious
antipathy towards Russia and her people on the part of a very large segment of
the West's ruling plutocracy. I suggest that this is the case, and it is
Russia's religion that is at the root of it.
During the
Communist era, Christianity was suppressed in Russia and throughout the Soviet
block. At its worst, under Lenin and Stalin, the Communist regime massacred
millions of Christians. Victims were mainly Orthodox, but Christians of every
denomination suffered. Even after the death of Stalin and into the 1980s
religion continued to be persecuted. All children were required to attend
lessons in atheism, during which Christianity and religious faith in general
was mocked. By the end of Communism, the Orthodox Church was a small remnant of
its former self under the Tsars, but that soon began to change. Hardship
birthed a spiritual revival; by the mid-1990s the Russian Orthodox Church, as
well as other branches of Christianity, began to experience noticeable growth.
It was not however until the first decade of the twenty-first century, and the
presidency of Vladimir Putin, that this movement became really significant.
Putin had occupied
a senior position in the Yeltsin administration, and he was no doubt viewed by
the oligarchs, at that time the real rulers of Russia, as a safe pair of hands
who could be relied upon to continue the policies which had allowed them to
plunder the country for almost a decade. He was appointed Prime Minister on 9th August
1999 and, just four months later, in December, acting President of Russia,
following the unexpected resignation of Boris Yeltsin. A presidential election
on 20th March 2000 was easily won by Putin with 53% of the votes. One reason
for Putin's popularity was that he was seen as a strong leader during the
Second Chechen War, which commenced on 7th August 1999, just
two days before his appointment as Prime Minister. The war ended in April 2000,
with Chechnya again part of the Russian Federation, a victory which enhanced
Putin's reputation as a strongman, willing and able to restore stability and
enforce the law.
Over the next five
years, Putin showed that the ruling plutocrats were very much deceived had they
imagined him to be under their control and part of their team. On the contrary,
the new president set about breaking their power. The next decade witenessed a
series of legal cases and trials which left some of the oligarchs in prison and
others forced to pay substantial compensation. Others, arguably the most
criminal, fled the country and their assets were confiscated. The breaking of
the oligarchs' power, together with that of the “Russian mafia” which enforced
their corrupt rule, began to restore some form of normality.
In 2013, the Russian "Gay Propaganda Law", described as
“Protecting Children from Information harmful to their Health and Development,”
explicitly banned Gay Pride parades, as well as other forms of LGBT material,
such as books and pamphlets, which attempted to normalize homosexuality and to
influence children in their attitudes to homosexuality.
In parallel with
his economic reforms, Putin oversaw a revival of the Russian Orthodox faith. In
an act heavy with symbolic import, he made a visit to the great Orthodox
monastic settlement of Mount Athos in Greece in 2001, just one year into his
presidency. Although this attempt had to be aborted owing to a storm which
grounded his helicopter, and a second attempt in 2004 similarly shelved when he
had to return to Russia to deal with the Beslan School siege, he finally made
it to the Holy Mountain in 2005. There he established a bond with the monks
that transformed their community and impacted the lives of ordinary Russians. A
major program of church-construction commenced, and the numbers attending
church began to grow. Putin made it clear that he regarded Orthodoxy as
Russia's national religion and the Church was accorded a favored legal
position. And such symbolic gestures were backed by new legislation which began
to transform Russian society: the country's abortion laws, hitherto some of the
most liberal in the world, were tightened. In October 2011, the Russian
Parliament passed a law restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy, with an exception up to 22 weeks if the pregnancy was the result
of rape. The new law also made mandatory a waiting
period of two to seven days before an abortion could be performed, to allow the
woman to “reconsider her decision.”
During this period,
the portrayal of Russia in the Western media moved from one of condescension to
outright hostility. As early as 2005, scholars Ira Straus and Edward Lozansky
remarked upon a pronounced negative coverage of Russia in the US media,
contrasting negative media sentiment with largely positive sentiment of the
American public and US government. As Russia displayed increasing signs of a
Christian revival, so the media reporting in the West became increasingly
hostile. Only rarely however did journalists openly attack Russia for its
“Christianization”; normally, columnists, conscious of the fact that large
numbers of people in the West continued to describe themselves as Christian,
portrayed their anti-Russian commentary as a result of Russia's “aggression,”
“corruption,” or “lack of democracy.” All that however changed with the new
abortion law of 2011. Now the attacks against Russia became explicitly
ideological. The Russians, we were told, were oppressing women and turning their
backs on “progress.”
It was not until
2013, however, that the anti-Russian rhetoric went hyperbolic. In that year,
the Russian parliament passed its so-called “Gay Propaganada” law. The bill,
described as “Protecting Children from Information harmful to their Health and
Development,” explicitly banned Gay Pride parades, as well as other forms of
LGBT material, such as books and pamphlets, which attempted to normalize
homosexuality and to influence children in their attitudes to homosexuality. In
actual fact, since around 2006, many districts in Russia had been imposing
their own local bans on such material, though these rules had no power outside
their own jurisdiction. The bill, which was signed into law by Putin on June 30
2013, was extremely popular, and passed through the Russian Parliament
unanimously, with just one abstention. But the impact upon the Western nomenklatura who form the
gatekeepers of acceptable opinion, was immediate. Almost unanimously, Western
media outlets now began to compare Putin with Adolf Hitler; he was a “thug,” a
“fascist,” a “murderer.” Between bouts of seething rage, he became the butt of
scathing satire. He was cast in the role of a caricature James Bond villain,
routinely murdering and torturing those he held a grudge against. There is even
evidence, admittedly somewhat circumstantial, that Western Intelligence bodies,
such as the CIA and MI5, became actively involved in anti-Russian propaganda.
The collective “West” could not have been unaware of the dangers
of its interference in the affairs of Ukraine.
The effect of this
deluge of demonization upon ordinary Westerners soon began to show: Whereas in
2006 only 1% of Americans listed Russia as “America's worst enemy” by 2019 32%
of Americans, including 44% of Democrat voters, shared this view. Only 28% of
Republicans however agreed; a remarkable reversal of opinion. During the Cold
War, Republican voters, traditionally the more religious and nationalistic
element of the American political divide, viewed the Russians as the major
threat; now it was the less or non-religious (and more pro-LGBT) Democrats who
held this opinion.
But the Western
elites did not confine its efforts to irate editorials in the London Times or the Washington Post: Economic
sanctions now began to be discussed. There were immediate calls to boycott the
Winter Olympics, held in February 2014 in Sochi, Russia. Whilst the call to
boycott was generally resisted by athletes, many Western politicians refused to
attend, and the Russophobic temperature in the Western media ratcheted up. And
things were about to get much worse.
In 2010 Viktor
Yanukovych, a native of Russian-speaking Donetsk, was elected President of
Ukraine, defeating Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, in what was judged by
international observers to be a free and fair election. In November 2013
Yanukovych delayed signing a pending European Union association agreement, on
the grounds that his government wished to maintain economic ties with Russia,
as well as with the European Union. Russia had in fact offered a more favorable
loan bailout than the European Union was prepared to offer. This led to
protests and the occupation of Kiev's Independence Square, a series of events
dubbed the “the Euromaidan” by those in favor of aligning Ukraine with the
European Union. Whilst at times it looked as if the protests would fizzle out,
there is no question that almost from the beginning there was a concerted
effort on the part of Western politicians to keep them going. Beginning early
in December, several politicians from Berlin and Brussels paid
“morale-boosting” trips to the square, and these were followed, on December 15,
by the arrival of American Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy. To the
assembled crowds, McCain announced that “we are here to support your just
cause.” The Russians, for their part, condemned America's “crude meddling” in
Ukraine's affairs.
Victoria Nuland, at
that time Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the
Obama administration, arrived in Ukraine shortly afterwards, and immediately
set about fanning the flames of an already volatile situation. In speech after
speech she promised the protestors and rioters that America was behind them.
The result was the by early February 2014 Ukraine appeared to be on the brink
of civil war; violent clashes between anti-government protestors and police
left many dead and injured. Fearing for his life, on February 21 Yanukovych
fled the capital, initially travelling to Crimea and ultimately to Russia. A
new interim government, handpicked by Nuland, and virulently anti-Russian, was
immediately installed in Kiev.
Yanukovych's pivot towards Russia was seen by the “woke”
establishment in Washington as a sign that Ukraine would follow Russia into
adopting an increasingly Christian-friendly social culture; one that the
“liberals” and “progressives” in Washington despised.
When considering
the actions of America and the collective West at this time we have to remember
that Ukraine was and is a deeply divided society. Half the country, roughly the
north and west, regards itself as Ukrainian and is historically antagonistic
towards Russia. The other half, predominantly the south and east, is
pro-Russian and views itself as simultaneously Ukrainian and Russian. A glance
at the electoral map of the country demonstrates this division in a most
graphic way, for it was the Russian part of the country, the south and east,
which overwhelmingly put Yanukovych into power. In supporting a violent
overthrow of the latter, the American government quite deliberately threw its
weight behind the anti-Russian half of the population. And it is impossible to
believe that the political elite in Washington did not understand what they
were doing. They had to have known that they were making civil strife – if not
outright civil war – an absolute certainty.
The civil strife
was not long in coming. As the anti-government mobs in Kiev were in the process
of throwing out Yanukovych, major protests against the coup began to occur in
the south and east. Crimea, which was overwhelmingly Russian and had only been
transferred to the jurisdiction of Kiev in 1954 by Khrushchev, held a
referendum, resulting in a 97% vote for reunion with Russia. Putin, infuriated
by American actions in Kiev, accepted the result of the vote, and formally
announced the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation. Simultaneous with
this, cities and towns throughout the south and east of the country, saw
massive “anti-Maidan” protests, with many people calling for secession from
Ukraine and union with Russia. The new Washington-appointed regime in Kiev
reacted with force. Forty-seven pro-Russian demonstrators in Odessa were
besieged in the city's Trade Union building and burned to death by a Neo-Nazi
mob. Seeing the way things were going, the ethnically-Russian provinces
(“Oblasts”) of Lugansk and Donetsk declared independence and prepared to defend
themselves. This quickly escalated into full-scale war, and over the next two
years or so around 14,000 people, mainly ethnic Russian civilians, died, as the
Kiev government fought to return the two provinces to Ukraine.
The fighting in
Lugansk and Donetsk (the “Donbas”) de-escalated after the signing of the
so-called Minsk 2 Accord in 2015. This deal, brokered by Russia, the US and the
UN, provided for a degree of autonomy for the two breakaway provinces, as well
as recognition and respect for their Russian language and culture. The deal
also called for the immediate halting of all military action.
Gay “Pride” parades became a regular feature of life in Kiev
where, though distinctly unpopular with the great majority of the population,
they received massive support and protection from the security forces.
Had the Minsk
agreement been fully implemented, it is quite possible that all hostilities
would have ended, but this was never the case. The new government in Kiev,
which from May 2014 was headed by Petro Poroshenko, made no attempt whatsoever
to abide by the Accord's provisions. On the contrary, the Russian language,
hitherto one of the official languages of Ukraine, was demoted, and Russian
culture in general denigrated. Even worse, none of those who had committed
murder in Odessa and elsewhere were brought to justice, and the Neo-Nazi
militias responsible for these atrocities were actually integrated into the
Ukrainian army. Worst of all, sporadic shelling of civilian targets in Lugansk
and Donetsk continued – for the next six years.
To repeat; the
collective “West” could not have been unaware of the dangers of its
interference in the affairs of Ukraine. This was a deeply divided country; to
intervene on behalf of one section of the country at the expense of the other
could not fail to deepen divisions and ultimately cause the disintegration of
the state. That the West took the side of the anti-Russian half of the
population was entirely in harmony with the increasingly hysterical tone of
anti-Russian rhetoric in the Western media in the years leading up to the
Maidan Revolution. And we can take with a pinch of salt the idea that Nuland
and the Obama Adminstration was concerned with “corruption” in the Yanukovych
regime: America is and always has been on very friendly terms with governments
far more corrupt, violent and totalitarian than that of Yanukovych.
I would suggest
that the real reason, or certainly an extremely important though unspoken
reason, for Nuland's mission was that Yanukovych's pivot towards Russia was
seen by the “woke” establishment in Washington as a sign that Ukraine would
follow Russia into adopting an increasingly Christian-friendly social culture;
one that the “liberals” and “progressives” in Washington despised. We should
note too that one of Poroshenko's first actions as President of Ukraine was to
provide openings for George Soros' Open Society Foundation, and to
simultaneously support the establishment of LGBT input into the educational
system. Gay “Pride” parades became a regular feature of life in Kiev where,
though distinctly unpopular with the great majority of the population, they
received massive support and protection from the security forces.
Source:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/6100-the-conflict-between-the-west-and-russia-is-a-religious-one
Emmet
Sweeney is the author of several works dealing with problems in the history of
the ancient Near East.
