IS THERE AN ALTERNATE PURPOSE TO THOSE STATED BEHIND WESTERN AGGRESSION AGAINST RUSSIA?

There are two most common but mutually opposed opinions on the present situation regarding the West and Russia.

Western political and media elites say Russian aggression makes it essential that all European nations join together in defence against it.

Russia says that the western powers through NATO are posing an existential challenge and threat to Russian sovereignty and national interests.

There is a third option related to the Russian analysis summarized above which I would like to explore.

That is, that this whole current scenario, initiated by the western powers, built up and progressed at least from the year 2007 until the present day, has an alternate purpose to those usually speculated upon.

To start with, I discount the possibility of war, except through unforeseen circumstances, due to unintended consequences. A hot war suits neither of the two great powers involved. A skirmish or limited military confrontation of some kind might certainly suit Ukraine but certainly not either of the two main power centres involved.

My third speculative purpose behind the western campaign of verbal attacks upon Russia does not include a hot war, this was always to be avoided at all costs. Why then push such a constantly aggressive narrative against Russia? Why do we see no truly valid attempts to minimise tension through diplomatic means and no ratcheting down of the rhetoric used? An example of the unhelpful use of words occurred yesterday when Jen Psaki, the current White House Press Secretary talked in terms of ‘typical Russian disinformation’ or words to that effect. This kind of talk concerning Russia has been heard so often in the West that it has become a constant refrain.

Why might this constant repeating of the same negative message regarding Russia signify?

On the face of they are an almost a comical series of tirades. To all intents and purposes, Russia sits where it is, relatively inactive on the world stage while every manner of “Russia Did It” statement, meme and trope is rolled out. Why? What might the ultimate purpose be behind this seemingly well organised and widely spread campaign to blacken Russia’s name across the western world?

Might the game plan be not about eventual regime change in Russia (though of course this would be welcomed) but about something else entirely, and something which used to be mentioned quite a lot in the past, an effort to isolate Russia, predominantly from Europe, but not only there.

Whether Ukraine and Georgia join NATO may not matter ultimately regarding military threats to Russia. If only the isolation of Russia through comprehensively blackening its name is the goal. Naturally, there would be many side effects to this detrimental to Russia and the interests of Russians, but the possibility of military conflict as a goal would fade almost completely away. As I say, no major power wants war. What the West wants is to keep its economic position of dominance across Europe and not have it reduced by the acceptance of Russia and China into the fold.

If the impression can successfully be given across Europe and across the entire planet if possible that Russia is untrustworthy, has evil intentions and should be feared, never embraced, then this could be made to infect all trading considerations in connection with Russia. We can see that outside of Europe this goal (if such it is) is failing. Turkey, India and others are agreeing major projects with the Russian state and with Russian companies. The rhetoric concerning ‘big, bad Russia’ is quite obviously being brushed off as nonsense by most nations outside Europe’s borders.

But within Europe, if you listen to any of the TV debates between western politicians or pundits you hear not one iota of verbiage taking Russia’s side. Not in the least. The perennial diatribes hold fast to a fixed dogma concerning the ‘Russian Threat’, ‘Russian Aggression’ and how to counter these. It is too noticeable and constant to seem anything other than a rabid mania, one that is exclusively affecting Europe and U.S. allies such as Britain, Australia and a few Middle Eastern states. Everywhere else Russia appears to be taken as simply another nation with which to make trading agreements and partnerships.

Odd. Isn’t it? Except for the fervent need of the USA and others in its cabal of European allies to maintain the trading dominance they have known forever… up to this point.

This is the third and primary purpose I believe behind the waterfall of angry assertions and accusations regarding Russia which have gone on for so long now and which show no sign of abating. Generate sufficient bad-mouthing that enough opprobrium sticks that it becomes subconscious and generates an automatic reluctance to contemplate any possible positive relationship with Russia. If this can be done then you have achieved the mission. Getting all European nations into NATO simply reinforces the group-thought, subconscious aversion into an agreed formula.

War is incredibly messy and outcomes can be unpredictable, extremely bad in terms of economic disruption, share values apart from all the human tragedies (which are the least of political elite concerns). The constant bad-mouthing of Russia I suspect is not because they want war with Russia but because western elites need to isolate Russia out of their own economic self-interest and to permanently retain Europe as their own exclusive fiefdom.

Principles such as ‘Freedom’, ‘Democracy’ and ‘Human Rights’ as justifying reasons for this struggle are mere charades hiding the true motivations involved.

It is in fact a modern rendering of the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ whereby the USA claimed the whole of Central and South America as its ‘back yard’ in which no other economic interests were allowed. U.S. political and corporate elites see Europe as their now vastly expanded backyard and it seems to me that their prime goal is to protect their corporate and national interests by keeping Russia (and China if possible) permanently excluded.