Tweet
Visite guidée de la psychologie des serviteurs-Système face à la Russie
Dans un formidable article qu’il est temps de signaler (dans The Nation en date du 3 mars, mis en ligne le 11 février 2014), le professeur Stephen F. Cohen, l’un des très, très rares connaisseurs de la Russie dans les élites washingtoniennes, poussait un cri non moins formidable pour dénoncer la lâcheté, la veulerie, l’irresponsabilité, l’indignité de l’attitude courante de la presse-Système US (du bloc BAO) vis-à-vis de la Russie et de Poutine. Bien entendu, BHO trône en souverain impérial comme inspirateur de cette cohorte, puisque lui-même chargé de ces mêmes vertus. Dans son dernier paragraphe, Cohen l’apostrophe durement, mettant en évidence combien ce piètre président enchaînant les erreurs pour pouvoir concourir au titre de pire président de l’histoire des États-Unis, s’est vu la mise sauvée par ce même Poutine qu’il (BHO) vilipende à longueur de pompeuses interventions, histoire d’être en règle avec ses neocons.
C’est dire, – pour revenir au plus actuel ... Même le Guardian, qui ne le cède à personne en fait de russophobie, affiche comme l’un de ses textes du jour ce commentaire de Jonathan Steele, l’un de ses principaux commentateurs sur les affaires de politique extérieures (le 2 mars 2014). Une citation substantielle nous paraît de bon aloi, tant Steele résume bien toutes les données du problème de l’«hysterical reaction» des dirigeants du bloc BAO face à l’évolution de la situation en Ukraine.
«Both John Kerry's threats to expel Russia from the G8 and the Ukrainian government's plea for Nato aid mark a dangerous escalation of a crisis that can easily be contained if cool heads prevail. Hysteria seems to be the mood in Washington and Kiev, with the new Ukrainian prime minister claiming, “We are on the brink of disaster” as he calls up army reserves in response to Russian military movements in Crimea.
»Were he talking about the country's economic plight he would have a point. Instead, along with much of the US and European media, he was over-dramatising developments in the east, where Russian speakers are understandably alarmed after the new Kiev authorities scrapped a law allowing Russian as an official language in their areas. They see it as proof that the anti-Russian ultra-nationalists from western Ukraine who were the dominant force in last month's insurrection still control it. Eastern Ukrainians fear similar tactics of storming public buildings could be used against their elected officials.
»Kerry's rush to punish Russia and Nato's decision to respond to Kiev's call by holding a meeting of member states' ambassadors in Brussels today were mistakes. Ukraine is not part of the alliance, so none of the obligations of common defence come into play. Nato should refrain from interfering in Ukraine by word or deed. The fact that it insists on getting engaged reveals the elephant in the room: underlying the crisis in Crimea and Russia's fierce resistance to potential changes is Nato's undisguised ambition to continue two decades of expansion into what used to be called “post-Soviet space”, led by Bill Clinton and taken up by successive administrations in Washington. At the back of Pentagon minds, no doubt, is the dream that a US navy will one day replace the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Crimean ports of Sevastopol and Balaclava. [...]
»It is not too late to show some wisdom now. Vladimir Putin's troop movements in Crimea, which are supported by most Russians, are of questionable legality under the terms of the peace and friendship treaty that Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997. But their illegality is considerably less clear-cut than that of the US-led invasion of Iraq, or of Afghanistan, where the UN security council only authorised the intervention several weeks after it had happened. And Russia's troop movements can be reversed if the crisis abates. That would require the restoration of the language law in eastern Ukraine and firm action to prevent armed groups of anti-Russian nationalists threatening public buildings there.»
Avez-vous le souvenir d’un Irak attaqué et dont les habitants fuient devant l’invasion des USA en se réfugiant... aux USA ?
C’est ce qui passe en Ukraine si l’on s’en tient à la narrative du bloc BAO (675 000 Ukrainiens réfugiés en janvier et en février en Russie pour fuir l’“invasion” de leur pays par la Russie). C’est sur de telles étranges réalités que s’appuie la psychologie en mode hystérique-turbo des employés-Système du bloc BAO. Le spectacle de leur fragilité psychologique, appuyée sur une constante bassesse de pensée, bien en-deça du seul mensonge, plutôt au niveau du junkie halluciné mais fort bien coiffé (la permanente de Kerry), est une des grandes séquences en cours de la crise ukrainienne, une extraordinaire révélation pour ceux qui n’y prenaient pas garde de l’état de décrépitude terrifiant des mécanismes du pouvoir dans le bloc BAO, – bien entendu, avec la palme aux USA, de très loin et comme toujours en avance sur les autres, – d’autant plus en avance que les USA n’ont pas de moyens réels de peser sur la situation et que leur politique repose sur l’hybris exacerbé d’une puissance en chute libre...
«In August, Putin virtually saved Obama’s presidency by persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to eliminate his chemical weapons. Putin then helped to facilitate Obama’s heralded opening to Iran. Should not Obama himself have gone to Sochi – either out of gratitude to Putin, or to stand with Russia’s leader against international terrorists who have struck both of our countries? Did he not go because he was ensnared by his unwise Russia policies, or because the US media misrepresented the varying reasons cited: the granting of asylum to Edward Snowden, differences on the Middle East, infringements on gay rights in Russia, and now Ukraine? Whatever the explanation, as Russian intellectuals say when faced with two bad alternatives, “Both are worst.”»
«Both John Kerry's threats to expel Russia from the G8 and the Ukrainian government's plea for Nato aid mark a dangerous escalation of a crisis that can easily be contained if cool heads prevail. Hysteria seems to be the mood in Washington and Kiev, with the new Ukrainian prime minister claiming, “We are on the brink of disaster” as he calls up army reserves in response to Russian military movements in Crimea.
»Were he talking about the country's economic plight he would have a point. Instead, along with much of the US and European media, he was over-dramatising developments in the east, where Russian speakers are understandably alarmed after the new Kiev authorities scrapped a law allowing Russian as an official language in their areas. They see it as proof that the anti-Russian ultra-nationalists from western Ukraine who were the dominant force in last month's insurrection still control it. Eastern Ukrainians fear similar tactics of storming public buildings could be used against their elected officials.
»Kerry's rush to punish Russia and Nato's decision to respond to Kiev's call by holding a meeting of member states' ambassadors in Brussels today were mistakes. Ukraine is not part of the alliance, so none of the obligations of common defence come into play. Nato should refrain from interfering in Ukraine by word or deed. The fact that it insists on getting engaged reveals the elephant in the room: underlying the crisis in Crimea and Russia's fierce resistance to potential changes is Nato's undisguised ambition to continue two decades of expansion into what used to be called “post-Soviet space”, led by Bill Clinton and taken up by successive administrations in Washington. At the back of Pentagon minds, no doubt, is the dream that a US navy will one day replace the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Crimean ports of Sevastopol and Balaclava. [...]
»It is not too late to show some wisdom now. Vladimir Putin's troop movements in Crimea, which are supported by most Russians, are of questionable legality under the terms of the peace and friendship treaty that Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997. But their illegality is considerably less clear-cut than that of the US-led invasion of Iraq, or of Afghanistan, where the UN security council only authorised the intervention several weeks after it had happened. And Russia's troop movements can be reversed if the crisis abates. That would require the restoration of the language law in eastern Ukraine and firm action to prevent armed groups of anti-Russian nationalists threatening public buildings there.»
Avez-vous le souvenir d’un Irak attaqué et dont les habitants fuient devant l’invasion des USA en se réfugiant... aux USA ?
C’est ce qui passe en Ukraine si l’on s’en tient à la narrative du bloc BAO (675 000 Ukrainiens réfugiés en janvier et en février en Russie pour fuir l’“invasion” de leur pays par la Russie). C’est sur de telles étranges réalités que s’appuie la psychologie en mode hystérique-turbo des employés-Système du bloc BAO. Le spectacle de leur fragilité psychologique, appuyée sur une constante bassesse de pensée, bien en-deça du seul mensonge, plutôt au niveau du junkie halluciné mais fort bien coiffé (la permanente de Kerry), est une des grandes séquences en cours de la crise ukrainienne, une extraordinaire révélation pour ceux qui n’y prenaient pas garde de l’état de décrépitude terrifiant des mécanismes du pouvoir dans le bloc BAO, – bien entendu, avec la palme aux USA, de très loin et comme toujours en avance sur les autres, – d’autant plus en avance que les USA n’ont pas de moyens réels de peser sur la situation et que leur politique repose sur l’hybris exacerbé d’une puissance en chute libre...
Commentaire