By ericdraitser
Aug 20th, 2012
Posted October 7, 2012
The shootings and bombings in Ingushetia and Dagestanthis week rekindled a long-standing, brutal campaign of violence and terrorism
in Russia’s Caucasus region ~ one that has seen more than its share of terror
stretching back to the Chechen “rebellion” of the 1990s. However, in
examining the recent attacks, it becomes clear that there are political and
geopolitical interests behind the scenes that are actively working to
destabilize Russia, with violence as their most potent weapon.
The attacks are not simply isolated terrorist actions, but rather, cynically orchestrated events carried out by well-connected criminal networks whose goal is to foment conflict and carry out the agenda of the US intelligence establishment in its subversion of Russia.
TERRORISTS, PROPAGANDISTS AND HANDLERS
The complex network of terrorist organizations that operate
under the banners of “separatism” and “independence” for the Caucasus region,
has been at the center of the destabilization of Russia for the last two
decades. .
Within hours of the deadly attacks, the Kavkaz Center ~ an organization known
to be the propaganda mouthpiece of terrorist leader Doku
Umarov ~ released an article characterizing the attacks
as heroic acts and referring to the dead as “Russian puppets.”
Though this would seem to be not in keeping with the Center’s stated mission “to provide reporting of events…and assistance of journalistic work in the Caucasus,” this is, in fact, very much par for the course for an organization that is
Kavkaz Center has a long track record of supporting and
legitimizing terrorist actions throughout the region, rationalizing atrocities
committed in the name of “resistance.” In fact, Kavkaz engages in
perpetual upside-down logic, referring to Russians as “terrorists” and
terrorists as “heroes.”
This type of Goebbles-esque propaganda is the hallmark of Western imperialist projects; most recently in the conflict in Syria, in which the Syrian National Council, Western corporate media and the like refer to terrorism and subversion as “rebellion and freedom-fighting”.
Additionally, it is essential to note that Emarat Kavkaz
(Umarov’s terrorist organization translated as “Caucasus Emirate”) has been listed by the United Nations as an organization
associated with Al-Qaida. Kavkaz Center has been described by
Umarov himself as “the official information organ of the Emarat Kavkaz.”
This, of course, supports the claims made repeatedly by
Moscow of the connection between Chechen and other extremists in the region and
Al Qaida, a claim which, until recently, Kavkaz Center continued to deny.
Despite the fact that organs such as Kavkaz Center operate
in the service of terrorists who advocate the destruction of Russia, their
activity alone is not altogether significant if seen in a vacuum. Rather,
it is the association of these types of individuals and organizations with the
US State Department and US intelligence that makes them particularly
insidious.
One such entity that bears scrutiny is the American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus (ACPC),
previously known as the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. As reported by Right Web at the
Institute for Policy Studies, “The ACPC was founded in 1999 by Freedom House, a
neoconservative organization that has worked closely with the U.S. government,
receiving funds from the National Endowment for Democracy and
other U.S. democratization initiatives.” This intimate relationship
between the ACPC and the US State Department indicates not merely a confluence
of interests, but rather a direct relationship wherein the former is an organ
of the latter.
ED: I smell George Soros in this mix since
Freedom House and the NED are among his favourite organizations for sowing
discord in nations to be “democracized”.
The paternalistic role of the US intelligence establishment
in the ACPC is made all the more evident when one examines some of the more
well known members of the ACPC including former National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Pentagon advisor Richard Perle and other top
neocons such as William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, and Robert
Kagan ~ the last two being closely associated with the inner circle of the
Romney campaign.
What becomes apparent in even a cursory analysis of these
figures is that, despite the preponderance of neoconservatives, the top members
of the ACPC are pulled from both the liberal and conservative
establishments. Therefore, one can see how the ACPC represents a
bipartisan consensus within the US imperialist ruling class ~ a consensus of
aggression against Russia.
What should be even more concerning to political observers
is that, given the very real possibility of a Romney victory in November,
Russia may see a surge in separatism and violence supported overtly or covertly
by the ACPC and a future Romney administration.
The ACPC has taken the lead in championing the cause of
separatism and terrorism directed toward Russia, both tacitly and
overtly. After having championed the cause of former Chechen Foreign
Minister Ilyas
Akhmadov in his quest for asylum in the United States ~
subsequently granted along with a generous taxpayer-funded stipend ~ ACPC
member Zbigniew Brzezinski went so far as to write the forward to Akhmadov’s
book The Chechen Struggle.
The alliance between political figures such as Akhmadov and
terrorist leaders in the region demonstrates conclusively the partnership
between the various terror networks and the imperialist ruling class in the
West. Moreover, it shows that, along with oligarchs such as Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich, the US and UK are
still the favorite safe havens for criminals fleeing Russian justice.
THE POLITICAL CONTEXT
Although the attacks of this week are tragic, their real
significance is political in nature. There has been a sustained
destabilization campaign waged by the West, particularly the United States, and
aimed at President Putin going back to last December and the beginning of the
so-called protest movement.
The attempt by the Western imperialists has been to isolate
Putin, demonize him, and erode his support within the country in hopes of
toppling his government, thereby removing the biggest obstacle they face in
implementing their hegemonic agenda. However, despite the financial
backing, political demagoguery and media inundation, the attempts have entirely
failed.
Once it became clear that Vladimir Putin would be reelected
to a third term, the US State Department began its campaign against him.
Organized and implemented by US Ambassador Michael McFaul in Moscow, the protest movement led by
figures such as Alexei Navalny and Boris Nemtsov as well as US-funded NGOs such
as GOLOS and the Moscow Helsinki Group, the movement essentially sought to
instigate a “color revolution” in Russia using the same tactics that had been
successful in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere.
However, it was soon quite obvious to political observers in
Russia and around the world that this movement was nothing more than a
superficial destabilization attempt that had no real traction among the Russian
people.
Because of the failure of this manufactured protest
movement, the tactics of subversion had to change. The imperialists had
to incorporate new tactics that would either revive and grow the protest
movement or inspire an international outcry. And so, we get the
controversy surrounding the feminist punk band Pussy
Riot.
The Western media has attempted to hold up the band, which
engaged in obscene and lewd acts inside a Russian church, as crusaders and
martyrs for the cause of free speech. Naturally, this utterly transparent
and vacuous attempt to whip up anti-Putin sentiment has, like the protest
movement before it, sputtered and stalled.
And so, as every covert attempt at subversion through the use of “soft power” has failed, the Western imperialists now activate their terror networks in the Caucasus to do by force what their intelligence networks failed to do by stealth: destabilize Russia.
THE GEOPOLITICAL CALCULUS
The seemingly endless attempts to subvert the Putin
government are cynically designed operations whose overarching goal is
geopolitical in nature.
To the US and its allies, partners, and clients, Putin
represents a block that is difficult, if not impossible, to maneuver
around.
As demonstrated clearly in Syria, President Putin is able to
successfully lead an opposition to the United States: an empire attempting to
impose its hegemonic designs on the region. By using international law,
the principle of national sovereignty, counter-propaganda, and countless other
diplomatic weapons, Putin, along with his allies in China, has prevented the
wider war that the US has tried to foment.
Moreover, Putin has presented a major roadblock on the path
to war with Iran, another mortal sin in the eyes of Western imperialist
warmongers.
Putin’s “crimes” do not stop there. He has managed to
successfully assert the right of national sovereignty over state resources,
jailing or otherwise diminishing the power of the oligarchs who enriched
themselves in the 1990s at the expense of the Russian people.
He has successfully established the legitimacy of
international institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
and BRICS that exist outside the dominance
of the United States and have begun to emerge as a counter-weight to NATO and
other similar arms of US imperialism.
Putin has also led the economic resurgence of Russia and
maintained its dominance in the energy market with pipelines, exploration, and
myriad deals with multinational corporations.
The common thread that unites the above mentioned achievements of President Putin is an unwillingness to be subservient to the United States.Putin has become, in the eyes of the Western imperialist ruling class, the unruly little brother who must be taught a lesson by force.
And so, innocent Russians must pay with their lives for the
hubris of these imperialists. As has been clearly demonstrated in Syria,
Iran, Pakistan and countless other places around the world, terrorism remains
the favorite weapon in the arsenal of the ruling class in the West.
The attacks in Ingushetia and Dagestan are merely the latest
example of this. Surely, they will not be the last.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.