James Petras: The Rise of German Imperialism and the Phony “Russian Threat"

[reorg]

The Rise of German Imperialism and the Phony “Russian Threat”
By Prof. James Petras

... The ‘Russian Threat’, the ideology driving the US and German offensive throughout Europe and the Caucuses, is a replay of the same doctrine which Hitler used to secure support from domestic industrial bankers, conservatives and right wing overseas collaborators among extremists in Ukraine, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria.

The US-EU seizure of power via vassal political clients backed by corrupt oligarchs and Nazi street fighters in Ukraine detonated the current crisis. Ukraine power grab posed a top security threat to the very existence of Russia as an independent state. After the Kiev take-over, NATO moved its stooge regime in Kiev forward to militarily eliminate the independent regions in the Southeast and seize the Crimea, thus totally eliminating Russia’s strategic position in the Black Sea. Russia, the victim of the NATO power grab was labelled the “aggressor”. The entire officialdom and mass media echoed the Big Lie. Two decades of US NATO military advances on Russia’s borders and German-EU economic expansion into Russian markets were obfuscated. Ukraine is the most important strategic military platform from which the US-NATO can launch an attack on the Russian heartland and the single largest market for Germany since the annexation of East Germany

The US and Germany see the Ukraine conquest as of extreme value in itself but also as the key to launching an all-out offensive to strangle Russia’s economy via sanctions and dumping oil and to militarily threaten Russia. The strategic goal is to reduce the Russian population to poverty and to re-activate the quasi-moribund opposition to overthrow the Putin government and return Russia to permanent vassalage. The US and German imperial elite, looking beyond Russia, believe that if they control Russia, they can encircle, isolate and attack China from the West as well as the East.

Wild-eyed fanatics they are not. But as rabid proponents of a permanent war to end Russia’s presence in Europe and to undermine China’s emergence as a world power, they are willing to go to the brink of a nuclear war.

The ideological centerpiece of US-German imperial expansion and conquest in Europe and the Caucuses is the “Russian Threat”. It is the touchstone defining adversaries and allies. Countries that do not uphold sanctions are targeted. The mass media repeat the lie. The “Russian Threat” has become the war cry for cringing vassals – the phony justification for imposing frightful sacrifices to serve their imperial ‘padrones’ in Berlin and Washington – fearing the rebellion of the ‘sacrificed’ population. No doubt, under siege, Russia will be forced to make sacrifices. The oligarchs will flee westward; the liberals will crawl under their beds. But just as the Soviets turned the tide of war in Stalingrad, the Russian people, past the first two years of a bootstrap operation will survive, thrive and become once again a beacon of hope to all people looking to get from under the tyranny of US-NATO militarism and German-EU economic dictates.

http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=2016

[Odin2005]

1. What a load of nonsense.

Putin is acting like Hiter and this idiot is calling NATO the Nazis?

[reorg]

8. No, it's a concise and well-thought-out analysis

and it's shared, at least in part, by many Germans. Pretty much every elder statesman of some import has weighed in on the "discussion", criticized the vilification of the Russian president and warned not to ignore Russian perceptions, legitimate interests and fears. And it's not just politicians and experts on international relations, as Prof. Petras mentions:

"The German economic ruling class is divided between the dominant pro-US sector that is willing to sacrifice lucrative trade with Russia today in hopes of dominating and pillaging the entire economy in a post-Putin Russia (dominated by ‘reborn Yeltsin clones’); and a minority industrial sector, which wants to end sanctions and return to normal economic relations with Russia.

http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_opinion/2014/12/07/07-51-47pm/ukraine_crisis_once_war_europe_not_our_name

http://rt.com/news/212107-germany-russia-relations-peace/

[Odin2005]

12. RT? LOL!

[reorg]

13. Feel free to RT, of course, no problem!

Funny that outside the German-speaking world rarely a peep was heard about this petition, apparently.

[steve2470]

2. Kremlin propaganda and bullshit, dismissed! nt

[reorg]

7. I appreciate your response

but have to say that I find your analysis lacking in detail and your conclusion less than convincing!

[DetlefK]

3. That raises some questions...

1. Ukraine moved to seize Crimea? That's funny, because the Crimea had legally been ukrainian territory for decades and it was masked militias and russian biker-gangs who changed that.

2. Evil Germany expanded economically into Russia by selling stuff to Russia. This begs the question: Why isn't Russia selling sophisticated products to GERMANY?

3. With what troops has Nato threatened Russia militarily?

4. Return Russia to vassalage? AFAIR, merely 25 years ago Russia was the head of an international empire itself. Whose vassal was Russia?

5. China should support Russia, because Russia's problems are China's problems!

6. And this permanent war has seen how many engagements by Nato-troops in Europe?

7. Who has brought up nuclear weapons?

8. What population is getting sacrificed?

9. To whom has Russia been a beacon of hope and freedom?

[DetlefK]

4. Oh, oh, I've got one more! How West Germany annexed East Germany:

Remember when West Germany annexed Eastern Germany? West Germany orchestrated for East Germany to make catastrophic economic decisions over the decades and made everyone think that East Germany's policy of executing people who tried to leave the country was bad.

Next, West Germany orchestrated a populist uprising by convincing the East Germans that there had been state-sanctioned election-fraud in local elections. And West Germany kept East Germany from crushing it by sending in Gorbachev on a state-visit, so beating up the protesters would have looked really bad.
And once East Germany was paralyzed by recklessly non-violent protests, West Germany pulled off its biggest coup: They messed with the orders the ZK of East Germany sent to a press-conference, which led to a mix-up and accidentally declaring that all travel-restrictions are revoked immediately. This led to the fall of the Berlin Wall andsoforth.

And West Germany landed such a big coup in occupying East Germany, that Chancellor Helmut Kohl ordered a currency-exchange-rate of 1:1, even when economists warned that it should be more like 1 West-Mark to 2 East-Mark.
West Germany got so rich by annexing East Germany, that it had to invent a new tax on its western states with the specific purpose of giving the extra money to the eastern states to help them with their development. (There is currently a discussion in Germany whether they can finally stop the extraordinary financial support for the eastern states.)

[reorg]

6. So, your point is, I suppose

Last edited Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:10 AM - Edit history (2)

that it is okay for a state to annex another if they pay for it and if the annexed population is willing? I'll take a note and quote you if the occasion arises.

Perhaps you are one of those, to quote Egon Bahr in a recent speech, who are "constantly babbling about 're'-unification" when no such thing actually took place?

Neither the partition after WWII and nor the changes made in 1990 were the result of German decisions. The two German entities were not souvereign states. Whereas the Soviet Union relieved itself from all rights and duties towards its client state, West Germany could only act under the conditions set out by the US: continued NATO membership, now of West and East Germany combined. Not to mention certain ground rules governing the social and economic system.

Of course the East was annexed, nobody can rationally dispute it: it took quite a while for the "blooming landscapes" to appear, but just a few days, if that, for Western companies, banks and real estate vultures to prowl their new hunting grounds. The formerly state-run industry was sold out for change and gone within a few years. Westerners took over as state governors, many administrative and judicial posts opened up new opportunities and enhanced Western careers. How many laws were adapted in the West, what, except the preamble, was changed in the constitution?

Or did I misread your little story and you only meant to say the annexation was unplanned, an accident? Sure, Schabowski's anecdote about that press conference was cute, but it doesn't really change a thing.

[DetlefK]

9. There are differences between Ukraine and East Germany.

For one, not a shot was fired, because nobody dared to cross that line.

Second, West Germany didn't annex a part of another state. The events affected East Germany as a whole and involved all voters of East Germany. (What if the east german voters had stuck with the PDS after the reunification?)
In Crimea, the referendum was held by a part of the eligible voters AND it was held under military presence.
Likewise, the secession of Eastern Ukraine is only carried by a part of the population.

For example:
It would be hard to find arguments against a reunification if Taiwan decides to become part of China again, because they make that decision. On the other hand: What if there's unrest in Taiwan, China decides to send "peace"-troops and a referendum is held under military presence?

[reorg]

14. You were making the comparison, I don't think there are many similarities

The Crimea seceded from Ukraine immediately following the coup in Kiev - the government institutions in the GDR took much, much longer to adapt to changing external and internal circumstances. Whereas Russian troops were going to leave East Germany, they were going to stay in Crimea. The Crimean population decided in a peaceful referendum to reunite the Autonomous Republic of Crimea with Russia - in this case a real "re"-unification since Crimea had already been part of Russia until 60 years ago. There was never a referendum about the annexation of the east German territories by the FRG, neither in the East nor in the West. You are correct to point out that a PDS majority in the East might have led to a different outcome, just as the West would surely have acted in different ways with Lafontaine at the helm. What you and probably most foreigners forget is that the Left DID have strong support, they did not represent the majority but a significat share of the electorate, about 20 percent and more in the East to this very day

The Russian troop presence in Crimea thankfully prevented violent and murderous interference from outsiders - a very real threat as became apparent in Odessa only a few weeks later. How and why securing the peace during a referendum should influence the decision by the voters is a mystery to me. Was anybody forced to go to the polls and agree to the unification against their will? What I have seen points to the direct opposite, that the population was very happy to have this choice and glad with the outcome, for a number of reasons.

The anti-Russian propaganda in recent months consequently doesn't really focus on whether the outcome of the referendum represents the people's choice, they quibble about its legality, whether small minorities will also be happy about it and so forth. They farcically allege that Russia "invaded" while at the same time averring that the Russian troop presence was never at risk.

There is one and only one legitimate problem with the Crimean decision to secede, whether it was in fact in violation of international law and would have required a different process as well as the agreement of the larger entity of which Crimea had been part for 60 years. The GDR did not have to deal with this problem, but it was central in the break-up of Yugoslavia. Anyone now questioning the legality of the Crimean decision to secede must explain their position towards Slovenia, Croatia and, especially, Kosovo.

Prof. Petras explains why the obviously very different answers to a seemingly merely technical legalistic problem came to pass. In Kosovo, we were told, a "genocide" was taking place that justified the blatant violation of international law as well as military aggression. We see similar death rates now in the east of Ukraine. I'm waiting for NATO to bomb Ukraine into submission ...

[geek tragedy]

11. OMG stating that the end of Soviet control of East Germany

and reunification was an annexation is just precious and exactly what one would expect from Moscow's army of online trolls.

[Blue_Tires]

5. Sadly, another useful idiot

who believes he can't be seen a "real" anti-imperial leftist without cozying up to the Kremlin...

[geek tragedy]

10. More swill from the Putin-humping Cold War revanchists.

This is pro- fascist propaganda worthy of Der Sturmer or Tass.

Sorry your side deservedly lost the Cold War.