![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.unz.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/UkraineBoydCathey-600x400.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nEver since the fall of the Communist system and the fracturing of the old Soviet Union in 1989-1991, the globalist foreign policy hawks in the American state department and their dutiful minions in the media and amongst\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0political parties have actively pursued a program of what the late zealous Neoconservative Fox News pundit Charles Krauthammer termed a \u201cunipolar\u201d world. By that Krauthammer meant a post-Communist (and essentially secularized) world in which the established form of American \u201cliberal democracy\u201d would now succeed in imposing a new world order. In the words of prominent Neocon author Allan Bloom: \u201cAnd when we Americans speak seriously about politics, we mean that our principles of freedom and equality and the rights based on them are rational and\u00a0everywhere applicable<\/em>. World War II was really an educational experiment undertaken\u00a0to force those who do not accept these principles to do so<\/em>.\u201d [Allan Bloom, quoted in Paul Gottfried,\u00a0War and Democracy: Selected Essays, 1975-2012\u00a0<\/em>(London: Arktos Media, 2012), p. 110] (my Italics in the text)<\/span><\/p>\n But, in fact, as the late Sam Francis explained in various books and essays (e.g.,\u00a0Leviathan and Its Enemies,\u00a0<\/em>2016), this Neocon vision of a new world order is nothing less than a form of managerial kleptocracy, the control by powerful elites in our (permanent) government and big corporations who talk incessantly\u00a0about<\/em>\u00a0democracy, but in fact\u00a0use<\/em>\u00a0that term to disguise the increasing dominance they exercise over every facet of public and private life, whether in the United States, Western Europe, or since 1991 over most of the former Eastern Bloc.<\/span><\/p>\n Do we need further examples of this closer to home than the recent authoritarian actions by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or the extra-constitutional actions by what is euphemistically called \u201cthe January 6 Committee\u201d in the US Congress? Stand in the way of the Deep State administrative managers, and you get suppressed, cancelled, and arrested, and held in a Federal jail for months without bail or trial.<\/span><\/p>\n The present crisis in Ukraine has everything to do with the objectives and maneuvers of this managerial kleptocracy, and its attempts to force post-Communist\u2014increasingly anti-Marxist\u2014Russia to accept such a template.<\/span><\/p>\n Recall a bit of history: Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Secretary of State James Baker (representing President George H. W. Bush) solemnly agreed in principle that the old USSR would disintegrate into various new \u201crepublics,\u201d and in return NATO would\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0advance beyond its current borders, that is, would not take in those former Eastern Bloc countries (e.g., Poland, Romania, Slovakia, the Baltics, etc.), an action which would be seen as directly hostile and offensive to a greatly reduced Russian Federation. Indeed, after the end of the Soviet Union, its dismemberment, and the rise of an avowedly traditionalist and pro-Christian leadership in Moscow (no less a figure than the Reverend Franklin Graham noticed this), was there any reason for NATO even to exist, as President Trump once mused\u2026other than as a means for continued and increasing managerial control (following the Bloom paradigm)?<\/span><\/p>\n Professor Richard Sakwa (University of Kent, UK), in his excellent and very detailed study,\u00a0Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands\u00a0<\/em>(December 2014), has termed what happened after the fall of Soviet Communism the triumph of \u201casymetrism,\u201d by which he means that instead of welcoming the new, post-Communist Russia, which had now publicly rejected and repudiated the seventy years of brutal years of Marxist domination, as an equal partner in a \u201cGreater West,\u201d our foreign policy and Neocon managers in Washington and Brussels demanded that Russia give up any pretense of real independence or true partnership with the West.<\/span><\/p>\n This process occurred in steps, each time with agreements or protocols or memoranda, which were solemnized between the parties, but then essentially undermined by the US or by our client regime in Kiev. During the Clinton administration, and continuing on until 2020, one by one the former Eastern Bloc countries were\u00a0admitted as members of NATO<\/a>, including the Baltic states. In effect, the promises of Baker and the elder Bush meant nothing. What then were the Russians to think?<\/span><\/p>\n Much is made of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances of December 5, 1994. Through that\u00a0protocol<\/a>\u00a0Russia, the US and the United Kingdom \u201cconfirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenals to Russia.\u201d In return, Russia recognized the integrity and sovereignty of a neutral, non-militarized, non-hostile Ukraine. And accordingly, despite political turmoil and internal conflict within the Ukrainian state, from 1994 until the violent, American-sponsored Maidan coup d\u2019etat revolution of February 2014 (again, recall US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland\u2019s direct involvement), that agreement held. But with the flagrant violation of a truce between organized Kiev protesters (who had received from the US over\u00a0$5 billion to foment revolution) and the popularly-elected government of Viktor Yanukovych (who was seen by the Ukraine revolutionaries as pro-Russian), and the subsequent seizure of power by US-backed Ukrainian irredentists who then proceeded to severely persecute Ukraine\u2019s very large Russian-language and ethnic minority, the Budapest protocol was effectively abrogated (cf., Sakwa,\u00a0Frontline Ukraine,<\/em>\u00a0pp. 86-88 et seq).<\/span><\/p>\n It should be noted, as well, the United States never considered the Budapest Memorandum legally binding (Statement of April 12, 2013<\/a>) or in the category of a concluded treaty.<\/span><\/p>\n Russia responded by acceding to the overwhelming vote of citizens of the Crimean peninsula, which had never been Ukrainian, only forcefully \u201cgiven\u201d to the artificial \u201cUkrainian Socialist Republic\u201d in 1954 by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev (allegedly after a night of riotous drinking). For the Crimea includes the major Russian Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol, supposedly guaranteed by agreement to Russia, but which after the Maidan coup, the new American-sponsored regime in Kiev now threatened to take.<\/span><\/p>\n Russian president Vladimir Putin\u00a0responded<\/a>\u00a0via a press conference on March 4, 2014, to a question about Russia\u2019s supposed violation (in Crimea) of the Budapest Memorandum, describing the current Ukrainian situation as a revolution: \u201ca new state arises, but with this state and in respect to this state, we have not signed any obligatory documents.\u201d The Ukrainian state as envisaged by the Budapest Memorandum had, effectively, ceased to exist, and in its place an American-CIA-US State Department-created state had been forcibly implanted in its place.<\/span><\/p>\n Further, Russia declared that it had never been under obligation to \u201cforce any part of Ukraine\u2019s civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will,\u201d including the two newly-independent heavily-Russophone states of Donetsk and Lugansk in what was eastern Ukraine (those provinces, like Crimea, had never been a part of any independent Ukrainian nation, but were forcibly given to the artificial Soviet republic by Vladimir Lenin in 1922).<\/span><\/p>\n Once again, whether through the so-called \u201cRose Revolution\u201d in Georgia, or the American debacle in the Balkans, which only succeeded in creating an Islamist republic\u2014Kosovo\u2014in the heart of Europe, the \u201cOrange Revolution\u201d in Kiev must be seen in context as part and parcel of the overall Neocon and globalist effort to advance their internationalist aims. And those goals, let it be said, have nothing to do with traditional Western and Christian beliefs and values. Rather, they were and are a manifestation of what globalist Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, defined as\u00a0\u201cthe Great Reset,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0the \u201cwindow of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, the Russian incursion into Ukraine comes as a direct and cumulative result of actions which our State Department and intelligence community, with its minions in Western Europe, have engineered for thirty years: to, as it were, \u201cput Russia in its place\u2014at the back of the bus.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n