Biden Gives Yats His Marching Orders

Vice-President Biden went to Kiev to spend $1 billion of American tax-harvested resources. Here he seals the deal with a smiling Yatsenyuk who has occupied the office space and assumed the title of prime minister of Ukraine since the U.S.-approved coup d’etat. It’s easy to smile when someone else is picking up the tab.

biden and his pal Yats

After talking with Biden, “Ukraine’s government said on Wednesday the United States had promised to stand by it…” in its use of force against pro-Russian separatists. Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov said of this “There is no reason not to believe that the Americans are running the show.”

Of interest in seeing the U.S. empire defending its farflung lines of demarcation is that Obama is in Japan reassuring the Japanese He “started with reassuring Tokyo of U.S. support in its bitter territorial dispute with China.” This is a dispute over some tiny islands, shown here:

diaoyusenkaku

What does it mean when Biden promises to “stand by” Yatsenyuk and when Obama promises U.S. support to Japan? In Japan’s case, it means possibly going to war against China by the terms of a U.S.-Japan treaty. In Kiev’s case, it means aid, arms, intelligence, advice, cooperation, and possibly U.S. military advisors and special forces. It already means U.S. beefing up forces in the Black Sea and Poland. Remember that the CIA chief also visited Yatsenyuk.

Biden is not talking about the Budapest Memorandum but that can be borne in mind as background because it offers the U.S. a possible cover for its activities. If an invasion of Ukraine occurs (somehow determined), then both the U.S. and Great Britain may, but need not necessarily, respond militarily by the terms of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. This is a political agreement and lacks definite obligations.

Does the defense of Los Angeles, New York City, Tampa, Duluth, Salt Lake City, Brownsville, and Seattle depend on America’s going to war with China over a few rocks? Does it depend on America’s defending Japan against anything? Does the defense of any square inch of American soil depend on the U.S. government supporting a coup d’etat in Ukraine, choosing a new man to lead its government, and now propping up that government and state? Does it matter to the physical security of Topeka and Des Moines who runs breakaway regions in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world for that matter? And especially does it matter if those regions vote on breaking away or separating or switching allegiance to some other political entity?

The U.S. government has made it its business to defend borders in many farflung regions. It has made it its business by treaties. It often makes it its business to interfere because there is killing going on, or a natural disaster, or some change of government that it doesn’t like. Because the U.S. makes it its business to seek out new areas of confrontation and expansion, it has gone to war many times in foreign lands (as in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Cuba, the Philippines, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen). It is notable, however, that there has not been an attack on continental America initiated by a European, Asian, South American or African power or nation since the U.S. was formed, i.e., a hostile attack that began a war. The closest thing to this was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and that event owes to the fact that the U.S. took China’s side in the war between Japan and China; also to the fact that the U.S. engineered a coup in Hawaii and took over the islands. The participation of Americans in all of these wars came about because the U.S. government abandoned neutrality and took sides, not because America was under attack or because going into the war was required to defend Philadelphia, Buffalo, Nome, Bismarck or Tucson.

The U.S. declared war on Great Britain in mid-1812 without there having been a British attack on America. For two years, the Brits fought a defensive war. In 1814, after the defeat of Napoleon and after the U.S. had made headway in invading parts of Canada and ending a possible Indian Confederacy, Great Britain attacked America proper.

So, there is nothing basically new in Biden assuring Yats and Obama assuring Japan. This is standard operating procedure for the U.S. empire. Sooner or later, as they have again and again in the past, these kinds of worldwide interferences will result in new American wars. Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent especially have all sorts of trouble spots in which American forces are either already present or potentially committed. However, the surprising thing is that the U.S. has chosen to push up against Russia and China, whilst also cooperating with them on some matters. This is an amazingly stupid thing for the empire to do because in the long run, which isn’t that long (10-50 years), it will generate forces of resistance, domestic and foreign, that the over-extended, deeply indebted and increasingly repressive U.S. empire cannot manage or contain.

Along the present course, the twilight days of the empire are at hand. Sunset is not that far off, and then comes nightfall. Retrenchment and a return to a policy of neutrality are the only means to prevent really major dislocations and turmoil associated with continuing along the present course. Otherwise the troubles arising from over-extension will surface on the financial and economic front domestically. America is headed for severe economic and political repression (controls) domestically unless it pulls back on its foreign commitments and places its economy on a sound basis domestically.

Share

7:38 am on April 23, 2014