A pro-Russian activist guards a checkpoint outside the eastern Ukrainian village of Schastya, 25 km from the eastern Ukranian city of Lugansk, May 14, 2014. REUTERS/Valentyn Ogirenko
By John Pilger
Why do we tolerate the threat of another world war in our name? Why do we allow lies that justify this risk? The scale of our indoctrination, wrote Harold Pinter, is a â€œbrilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosisâ€, as if the truth â€œnever happened even while it was happeningâ€.
Every year the American historian William Blum publishes his â€œupdated summary of the record of US foreign policyâ€ which shows that, since 1945, the US has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many democratically elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical and biological weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.
In many cases Britain has been a collaborator. The degree of human suffering, let alone criminality, is little acknowledged in the west, despite the presence of the worldâ€™s most advanced communications and nominally freest journalism. That the most numerous victims of terrorism – â€œourâ€ terrorism – are Muslims, is unsayable. That extreme jihadism, which led to 9/11, was nurtured as a weapon of Anglo-American policy (Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan) is suppressed. In April the US state department noted that, following Natoâ€™s campaign in 2011, â€œLibya has become a terrorist safe havenâ€.
The name of â€œourâ€ enemy has changed over the years, from communism to Islamism, but generally it is any society independent of western power and occupying strategically useful or resource-rich territory. The leaders of these obstructive nations are usually violently shoved aside, such as the democrats Muhammad Mossedeq in Iran and Salvador Allende in Chile, or they are murdered like Patrice Lumumba in the Congo. All are subjected to a western media campaign of caricature and vilification – think Fidel Castro, Hugo ChÃ¡vez, now Vladimir Putin.
Washingtonâ€™s role in Ukraine is different only in its implications for the rest of us. For the first time since the Reagan years, the US is threatening to take the world to war. With eastern Europe and the Balkans now military outposts of Nato, the last â€œbuffer stateâ€ bordering Russia is being torn apart. We in the west are backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler. Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washingtonâ€™s planned seizure of Russiaâ€™s historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century.
But Natoâ€™s military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained â€œpariahâ€ role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.
Instead, Putin has confounded the war party by seeking an accommodation with Washington and the EU, by withdrawing troops from the Ukrainian border and urging ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to abandon the weekendâ€™s provocative referendum. These Russian-speaking and bilingual people – a third of Ukraineâ€™s population – have long sought a democratic federation that reflects the countryâ€™s ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are neither â€œseparatistsâ€ nor â€œrebelsâ€ but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland.
Like the ruins of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine has been turned into a CIA theme park – run by CIA director John Brennan in Kiev, with â€œspecial unitsâ€ from the CIA and FBI setting up a â€œsecurity structureâ€ that oversees savage attacks on those who opposed the February coup. Watch the videos, read the eye-witness reports from the massacre in Odessa this month. Bussed fascist thugs burned the trade union headquarters, killing 41 people trapped inside. Watch the police standing by. A doctor described trying to rescue people, â€œbut I was stopped by pro-Ukrainian Nazi radicals. One of them pushed me away rudely, promising that soon me and other Jews of Odessa are going to meet the same fate… I wonder, why the whole world is keeping silent.â€
Russian-speaking Ukrainians are fighting for survival. When Putin announced the withdrawal of Russian troops from the border, the Kiev juntaâ€™s defence secretary – a founding member of the fascist Svoboda party – boasted that the attacks on â€œinsurgentsâ€ would continue. In Orwellian style, propaganda in the west has inverted this to Moscow â€œtrying to orchestrate conflict and provocationâ€, according to William Hague. His cynicism is matched by Obamaâ€™s grotesque congratulations to the coup junta on its â€œremarkable restraintâ€ following the Odessa massacre. Illegal and fascist-dominated, the junta is described by Obama as â€œduly electedâ€. What matters is not truth, Henry Kissinger once said, but â€œbut what is perceived to be true.â€
In the US media the Odessa atrocity has been played down as â€œmurkyâ€ and a â€œtragedyâ€ in which â€œnationalistsâ€ (neo-Nazis) attacked â€œseparatistsâ€ (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). Rupert Murdochâ€™s Wall Street Journal damned the victims – â€œDeadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Saysâ€. Propaganda in Germany has been pure cold war, with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung warning its readers of Russiaâ€™s â€œundeclared warâ€. For Germans, it is an invidious irony that Putin is the only leader to condemn the rise of fascism in 21st-century Europe.
A popular truism is that â€œthe world changedâ€ following 9/11. But what has changed? According to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a silent coup has taken place in Washington and rampant militarism now rules. The Pentagon currently runs â€œspecial operationsâ€ – secret wars – in 124 countries. At home, rising poverty and hemorrhaging liberty are the historic corollary of a perpetual war state. Add the risk of nuclear war, and the question begs: why do we tolerate this?
This article first appeared in the Guardian, UK