As I’ve written earlier, the position the main stream media is taking seems to be one of being an extension of the powers that be. Rarely are the critical questions asked, and for the most part, with rare exceptions here and there, there is a significant bias to the reporting done.
An excellent example of this bias is when you look at the reporting done on the current crisis in Ukraine. This is a case that I want to look into in a bit more detail, now that several more things have become clear. In the Western media, the opinion seems to be that Vladimir Putin is bad, and NATO is good. They call the Russian position in this case imperialism, but forget their own role in creating and supporting this crisis in the first place.
In this article, I’ll explain some history about NATO expansion, and then go on trying to place the Ukrainian crisis into that historical framework, and subsequently I’ll take a look at the role the (Western) media have been playing so far, and what improvements can be made, to both our own governments’ positions relating to the U.S., and to media reporting.
Regime change and broken promises
As the phone call between Victoria Nuland (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State) and Geoffrey Pyatt (U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) reveals, the U.S. had made a plan of regime change for Ukraine. Nuland specifically mentioned Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Yanukovich’s successor and talk it through (“Yats is our man!”, “Have the UN help glue this thing”, “If it does gain altitude the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it.”, “Fuck the EU”). How convenient then, that when Viktor Yanukovich is ousted, and the dust settles in Kiev, Yatsenyuk is suddenly prime minister? And what is the first thing he does? Instead of attending to the problems in Ukraine and finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis, he flies off to the very people who put him in power, and visits the United States. No doubt to thank them, I would presume.
Meanwhile, Western nations have been trying to punish Russia for annexing the Crimea (which, by the way, was originally part of the Russian SFSR, before it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR by Nikita Khruchev in 1954). The sanctions don’t seem to have a big effect on Russia, and Russia has signed a new $400 billion 30-year gas deal with China on 21 May to try and make itself less dependent on Western gas customers. Russia is currently the biggest supplier of natural gas to Europe, and without the Russian gas, nations like Germany and Italy, as well as the Baltic states will get into trouble. There has been movement from these nations to try and become less dependent on Russia, and similarly, Russia has now signed a deal with China to become less dependent on the Western market, thereby significantly weakening any effect the sanctions were aimed at having.
NATO’s broken promise
NATO has been steadily expanding, despite the promise made in 1990 to the last Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev, who agreed that East- and West-Germany could be united and become a member of NATO, on the condition that NATO would not move one inch further east. Since then, NATO, mistakenly assuming that they had somehow “won” the Cold War, went on and happily incorporated 12 Eastern European nations into their fold, within Moscow’s sphere of influence, with the largest expansion eastwards taking place in 2004. Here’s an overview:
- In 1999: Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were added to NATO,
- In 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia,
- In 2009: Albania and Croatia.
Just imagine what would have happened had 12 South American nations joined the former Warsaw Pact? Now that would be something the U.S. would not accept. Similarly, Russia does not accept the continued expansion of NATO into their sphere of influence.
It looked like Ukraine was all set on becoming a future member of NATO. The prospect of Ukraine becoming a member state of the U.S.-led NATO is understandably a threat to Russian national security. They operate a major naval base in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, which is the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and from Sevastopol, the Russian fleet has quick access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Russians used to lease the base from the Ukrainians. However, the future of the lease might have been severely compromised if Ukraine would become part of NATO.
That the Russians feel threatened by the continued expansion of NATO is understandable given the fact that the U.S. military-industrial complex and their partners in Europe have been busy for many years expanding the “Star Wars” missile defense system in Eastern Europe, ostensibly to protect against a missile launch from Iran. The “Star Wars” program was established by President Reagan on 23 March 1983 as Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and renamed to Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation (BMDO) by the Clinton administration on 13 May 1993, then later renamed to Missile Defense Agency (MDA) in 2002 by the George W. Bush administration. I wonder why all the name changes were deemed necessary? To obfuscate and redirect unwanted media attention maybe? But I digress.
The hypocrisy of U.S. policy amazes me, because as some people still remember, when the Soviet Union did a similar thing in Cuba in 1962 (hint: supplying weapons to the Cubans to counter a possible future U.S. invasion attempt in Cuba after the failed CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion, and also sparked because the U.S. stationed nuclear weapons in Turkey), this in turn sparked anger from the United States and led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and subsequently, the Cuban Blockade.
A relic from the Cold War
In my opinion, NATO is a relic from the Cold War, which serves no purpose any longer and is now used as a way of furthering U.S. military hegemony in the world. With the revelations of Edward Snowden this last year, and hopefully with many more revelations to come, we should, as Europeans, ask whether we are still willing to continue to play the role of subservient lap dog of the U.S.. A role we’ve been playing since the end of the Second World War. We should start thinking about how we can safeguard the safety and security of European citizens, which by the way, is exactly what our governments, by definition, should worry about. Do we want to keep our own sovereignty? Because if we don’t, the game is up.
Instead, our governments seem more interested in giving our private data to U.S. corporations, and (by extension) their intelligence agencies. This in many cases significantly hurts European companies, for the powers of intelligence agencies are mostly used for industrial espionage purposes, not to combat terrorism. In fact, there has not been a single documented case of the NSA’s spying programs actually stopping any terrorists. President Obama claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been prevented (PDF, first page, 4th paragraph, published on 1 August 2013) thanks to the intel gathered by the NSAs metadata program, but this number is most likely pulled out of thin air, because there is no justification for this number, nor a way of checking that number independently.
The funny thing is, that the behaviour of the NSA is also significantly hurting U.S. companies, who see their European customers flee in droves for better alternatives that protect their privacy more. This is a negative economic effect the spying is having on the U.S. economy, as I’ve written about before, in November.
Our governments’ subservient attitude towards the U.S. is completely unjustified. For the people who claim that we would all be speaking German today had it not been for the Americans, they should retroactively get an F for history and re-take their history classes. For had it not been for the Soviets who suffered tremendous sacrifices combating Hitler (20 million Soviet civilians were killed during the war, not counting military personnel, more than 3 times the estimated 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust), the Western allies would probably not have been able to land on the beaches of Normandy, as Hitler would not have to split his forces, and could then focus solely on the Western front.
America only got involved in the Second World War in 1941, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Britain was left for years to fend for themselves, being bombed heavily by the German Luftwaffe. Massive kudos should be given to the Royal Air Force for keeping the British isles free of German occupation (with the notable exception of the Channel Islands just off the coast of France, as that was the only part of British soil occupied by the Germans during the war). To be clear, I don’t want to deny the American war effort, and I surely want to give credit where credit is due, but on the other hand, it wasn’t the “America saved the world” that many people think it is.
There simply is no further need for NATO to exist. The North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created on 4 April 1949 as a defensive alliance of Western countries to protect Western Europe from encroachment by the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union no longer exists, and modern-day Russia closely cooperates with Europe, despite the current diplomatic difficulties. With the increasing interdependence between Russia and Europe there’s less and less need for an organisation like NATO to continue to exist.
Nowadays, NATO’s only reason for existence seems to be to contain Russia, and further the U.S. military/industrial complex and the militarist hawks are trying to prove the necessity of NATO by means of the Ukrainian crisis. The United States sees the future of NATO increasingly as an offensive organisation that is meant to further U.S. interests, and will not only include former Soviet republics into their fold, but plans are already under way to expand NATO’s influence even further, and cooperate even more closely with the current “Partners across the globe,” namely Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan. Why are we such willing accomplices in that scheme?
The Role of the Mainstream Media
What struck me when watching the Ukrainian crisis unfold was the total and utter complacency and subservient attitude towards the official Western “party line” when the mainstream media reported on the crisis. There were hardly any critical questions asked when the telephone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt become publicly available, and no questions were asked as to the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian coup-imposed government.
Dare to ask the critical questions!
I would gladly watch the mainstream media more if they start being a bit more critical to the establishment, and not always simply copy/paste press releases, and actually try to analyse the matter for themselves and dare to ask the tough questions to the people in power.
This is again so lacking when it comes to coverage of the Ukrainian crisis, where there seems to be a unanimous consensus in the West that Putin is an evil imperialist, and NATO/EU/US is good, without even considering what really happens in Ukraine and the strategic and national interests involved, let alone the role the U.S. played in organising the coup d’état.
Of course the media can be critical towards Russia as well, and in fact they should. Truth be told, Russia still has a lot of problems to deal with, as do Western countries. And the media’s job should be to keep people informed so that they can freely form their opinions about the world around them, not just blindly copy the official party line. As then I might start watching again, and the employees of these media organisations might one day earn the title of “journalist.”