Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
As of today, more and more people grow to realize that the ongoing confrontation between Russia and the U.S. accounts for the most acute geopolitical problem/issue of modern times. After all, one does not have to be a genius to understand that, if allowed to continue gaining a momentum; this confrontation may lead to the outbreak of the WW3.
This, of course, raises a highly debatable and yet perfectly legitimate question – should the U.S. Government to proceed with its current policy of enacting economic sanctions against Russia and supporting the de facto illegitimate government of Ukraine, or should our governmental officials should reassess the legitimacy of this policy’s deployment, as such that harms the international reputation of America? In this paper, I will argue that it is specifically the second scenario that should be deemed the most circumstantially appropriate one, while explaining why it happened to be the case.
Body of the paper
At the present time, the U.S. and Russia are being commonly referred to as the ‘arch enemies’, which are bound to clash militarily in the future. Partially, this can be explained by the fact that many American politicians/governmental officials make a deliberate point in demonizing Russia, as an ‘evil empire’. Senator McCain, who clearly deserves a psychiatric attention due to his appetite for warmongering, can be referred to as a good example, in this respect.
According to him, the U.S. must act towards Russia in the manner that eliminates any possibility for the relationship between both countries to remain peaceful: “Sanctioning Russian officials, isolating Russia internationally, and increasing NATO’s military presence and exercises on its eastern frontier… making every effort to support and resupply Ukrainian patriots, both soldiers and civilians” (par. 10). The fact that these ‘patriots’ consider themselves the spiritual descendants of the Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators in the WW2 and that they openly fly flags with swastikas, while promoting the idea that the country’s Eastern part should be ‘ethnically cleansed’ of Russian-speaking citizens, does not bother McCain even slightly.
The formal reason why American warmongers, such as McCain, continue to add oil to the flame of civil war in Ukraine, while expecting that this will weaken Russia, is that they believe that by annexing Crimea on March 21, 2014, this Russia acted in the striking opposition the provisions of international law. As Lindberg noted: “Russia has acted (in the Crimea) on its own and has garnered no international support… the condemnation of its actions has been widespread and consistent with international law” (13).
Nevertheless, it is being rarely mentioned, on these people’s part, that in the legal sense of this word, the proclamation of independence by the Republic of Crimea in 2014 was no different from the U.S.-supported proclamation of independence by Kosovo in 2008 (Radeljic 435). In fact, it is specifically the former that has been fully compliant with the provisions of international law, because unlike the proclamation of Kosovo’s independence, it was legitimized by the outcome of the independence-referendum, held in Crimea on March 14, 2001.
During this referendum, the overwhelming majority of the peninsula’s residents (96%) expressed their strong support for the idea that Crimea must cease being the part of Ukraine and that it should join Russia instead (Biersack and O’Lear 248). The concerned development was predetermined by the fact that these people could not help perceiving the Ukrainian ‘democratic revolution’ (which took place in Kiev a month earlier), as to what it was in the reality – the anti-constitutional armed seizure of power, planned and organized by the CIA and carried out by the Ukrainian neo-Nazis. After all, the U.S. top-officials never even tried to make a secret of their involvement in bringing about the outbreak of the mentioned ‘revolution’, which itself represents a blatant violation of international law, because under the U.N.
Charter, countries cannot meddle in the internal affairs of each other: “In a speech to the National Press Club on December 13, 2013… Victoria Nuland boasted that the US has ‘invested’ $5 billion in ‘organizing a network’ to give Ukraine ‘the future it deserves’” (“Defeat Neocon” 1).
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that, in the aftermath of the Nazi-coup in Kiev, Crimeans decided to leave Ukraine – these people rightfully assumed that, if remained in Ukraine, it would be only the manner of time, before they end up targeted for ‘ethnic cleansing’ by the Ukrainian ‘revolutionary’ authorities. While living up to its obligation to defend Russians, regardless of what happened to be their actual whereabouts, Russia did not have any other choice but to send its troops to the Crimea, in order to prevent Crimeans from being subjected to genocide. This move, on the part of Russia, also signified the triumph of a historical justice.
After all, even though that for the duration of last 23 years, Crimea was the part of Ukraine de jure, it never ceased being Russian, in the factual sense of this word. The peninsula’s Russian town of Sevastopol was founded in 1783 – way before the word ‘Ukraine’ (borderland/province) started to make first appearances on the world map (Bebler 36).
Because in Eastern Ukraine, the overwhelming majority of citizens consists of ethnic Russians, as well, it does not make much of a surprise that, after having seen the peaceful absorption of Crimea by Russia, they started to demand for the same to be done in their own regions. After all, these people happened to be absolutely alienated from the dubious virtues of Nazi-collaborationism, which in the ‘revolution’s’ aftermath became the country’s official ideology. In return, the self-appointed ‘rulers’ in Kiev, declared the population of seven million Russian-speaking citizens in the East ‘terrorists’ and began shelling them with heavy artillery – something that falls under the definition of a crime against humanity.
In light of what was mentioned earlier, the U.S. current stance on the situation in Ukraine and on what accounts for Russia’s involvement in it, undermines the remains of America’s reputation, as a country committed to the ideals of a lawful and democratic living. This simply could not be otherwise because, due to the continuous progress in the field of information technologies, the actual truth about the situation in Ukraine and about the unsightly aspects of America’s contribution to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in this part of the world, finds its way into the minds of more and more people across the globe.
As a result, this country is being increasingly perceived as the actual agent of evil in the arena of international politics, which uses the excuse of being concerned with promoting ‘democracy’, as the tool of pursuing its geological agenda that reflects the irrational desire of American neocons to rule the world. It is understood, of course, that this can hardly can considered beneficial to the U.S. What is more, by continuing to enact more sanctions against Russia, the U.S. exposes itself being rather powerless to do anything about the ‘annexation of Crimea’ or about the imaginary ‘presence of Russian troops in Ukraine’.
After all, despite President Obama’s boastful claim that, due to having been subjected to American economic sanctions, Russia’s economy is now ‘torn to shreds’, it is far from being the case. Quite to the contrary – because of these sanctions, the whole sectors of the previously neglected/unprofitable sectors of Russia’s economy have received a powerful boost in vitality. In its turn, this causes many Americans to wonder – why to proceed with sanctioning Russia, if it will most definitely not cause the Russians to decide if favor of giving Crimea back to the failed puppet-state of Ukraine, the existence of which does not make any geopolitical cultural or economic sense, and which will soon collapse under the weight of its own unsustainability? Therefore, there is nothing surprising about the fact that, as time goes on; America’s allies begin to question whether the U.S. is indeed quite as powerful, as it would like everybody to believe.
The reason for this is apparent – the continually exhibited aggressive arrogance, on behalf of those who represent the world’s most powerful country, can hardly be seen as the proof of these individuals being particularly bright. As Margolis noted: “What earthly interests the U.S. has in Ukraine? About as much as Russia has in Nebraska. Yet the bankrupt U.S. is to lend $1 billion to the anti-Russian Kiev leadership and risk war in a foolish challenge to Russia” (15). Consequently, while in the hands of this type of people, America cannot help having the rate of its geopolitical competitiveness being drastically lowered – something that can be illustrated, in regards to the fact that nowadays, even such countries as Brazil and India refuse to refer to the U.S. in terms of a ‘superpower’.
Therefore, it will only be logical to suggest that the best solution to the ongoing geopolitical confrontation between the U.S. and Russia, capable of triggering the outbreak of the WW3, would be America’s renewed willingness to play according to its own rules of the game. If our country recognized the right of the Kosovars to gain independence from Serbia, then it should also respect the right of Russian-speaking people in Crimea and Donbas to be willing to cease being the part of Ukraine – the country that was created artificially exactly for the purpose of causing the Russians as much harm, as possible. In its turn, this would call for the economic sanctions to be lifted off Russia and for those who came up with the ‘bright idea’ of enacting them, in the first place, to be held accountable.
Conclusion
I believe that the earlier line of argumentation, in defense of the idea that the U.S. should stop ‘bullying’ Russia, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, it is no longer appropriate for the U.S. to consider itself in the position of defining what is best and what is worst for every particular country – the practice that up until now used to provide a powerful momentum to the rise of the anti-American sentiment in the world. We can only hope that American policy-makers realize this simple fact, before the escalation of geopolitical tensions on this planet reaches a critical point.
Works Cited
Bebler, Anton. “Crimea and the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict.” Romanian Journal of European Affairs 15.1 (2015): 35-54. Print.
Biersack, John, and Shannon O’Lear. “The Geopolitics of Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: Narratives, Identity, Silences, and Energy.” Eurasian Geography & Economics 55.3 (2014): 247-269. Print.
“Defeat Neocon Conspiracy in Ukraine!” Daily News. 2014: 1. Print.
Lindberg, Tod. “Crimea and Punishment.” The Weekly Standard 19.28 (2014): 12-13. Print.
Margolis, Eric. “Another Anschluss in Crimea.” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 33.3 (2014): 11-15. Print.
Mccain, John. “Obama Made America Look Weak: Commentary.” New York Times. Late Edition (East Coast). 2014: A21. Print.
Radeljic, Branislav. “Official Discrepancies: Kosovo Independence and Western European Rhetoric.” Perspectives on European Politics & Society 15.4 (2014): 431-444. Print.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.