Stirring up world conflict
Subject: Stirring up world conflict
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014
From: Dmitry Mikheyev <dmitrymikheyev@gmail.com>
I am again inviting this intellectual community to explore what from my point of view is a cardinal question of our time. Do democratic countries have legal and moral rights to instigate and perpetrate a Coup D’état against a legitimate government? Hypothetically, it seems only fair to help a poor, suffering nation to overthrow tyrannical, dictatorial or totalitarian regime. But what about using evil forces (neo-Nazis for example) to overthrow an admittedly corrupt yet legitimate government and creating chaos of monumental proportion? I honestly have problems with understanding — Where humanitarian intervention ends and a criminal stirring up of world conflict begin. Any help? Thanks.
Dmitry F. Mikheyev, former senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, lectures “Leadership in the 21st century” at various business-schools in Moscow.
In a private letter Professor Sobell commented on my two previous postings pertaining this problem (see below) and allowed me to distribute his thoughts on the matter.
Vlad Sobell, 15-3-2014, Prague
The core of Putin thought (which I personally would elevate to the status of the “Putin Doctrine”) is the belief that stability (even at the cost of keeping unsavoury dictators in power) is the ultimate value to uphold, much more precious than the so called “liberal Western democracy”. As you have previously written, America – the American and European neocons – hold the opposite belief: let’s unleash “creative chaos” and let freedom reign for eternity…
As you know, there are many serious problems with this. And so on balance, I am for “stability”, and hence I am a “Putin apologist”. In fact, I know that you stand on the same side of the barricade.
Problem number one, this great liberating “chaos” which you have written about is as a rule unleashed exclusively among the “inferior races”; the “superior” and “more advanced races” of the US/EU would not themselves dream of wanting to benefit from it. They are all in favour of “revolutionary change”, but only as long as it does not in the least threaten their own societies and their personal comforts. Imagine, for instance, Britain being told that it must abolish the monarchy so that it can finally have the benefits of democratically elected head of state…). And what about the prospect of liberating Scotland from the oppressive union with England? Why is London opposed to it?
As Putin put it in his customary colourful manner at his press conference on 4 March — here is the quote: “I sometimes get the feeling that somewhere across that huge puddle, in America, people sit in a lab and conduct experiments, as if with rats, without actually understanding the consequences of what they are doing. Why did they need to do this? Who can explain this? There is no explanation at all for it.”
Yes, the neocons do treat us like rats, but hey, who cares?!, we Europeans apparently do not mind being treated like rats. Certainly, no one in Brussels was really upset when Nuland made clear what she thought of them. (Slaves will be slaves…)
Problem number two: this time around the “great liberation experiment” with rats was conducted on perhaps the most dangerous geopolitical fault-line, on the borderline between the Russian Federation and NATO, in a “country” with a complicated history and ethnic mix not dissimilar to former Yugoslavia. Both NATO and Russia also happen to be nuclear superpowers. The Washington-based “social scientists” have this time decided to literally play with fire. How exciting!
My message to them: Please experiment in places like Cuba or Zimbabwe, if experiment you must (actually the only place that truly need liberating is North Korea, but that is a potato so hot that even the most dedicated neocon “scientist” would prefer to leave it alone…) but please, for God’s sake do not play with Europe! Since we will soon mark the centenary of the start of WWI, the message should be obvious.
I struggle to discern any semblance of method, not to mention intelligence, in this madness; on the contrary. They write about Putin going mad. But actually it is the other way round.
Finally, will Obama surrender his Nobel Peace Prize when finally World War III break out?
2014-03-13 Dmitry Mikheyev
Ed, your suggestion does sound as naive wishful thinking, and more so than you think. As a bleeding heart liberal you seem unable to understand two key premises of conservatism. One: Conflict is a healthy, constructive force of progress because the mechanism of Social Darwinism works only on the Hobbesian battlefield. Hence, reconciliation of differences through mutual concessions and acceptance is as anathema as reconciliation between God and Satan. Another basic assumption of conservatism: Individuals, ethnic and social groups, religions, races, cultures and civilizations are all inherently unequal and could and should be ranked hierarchically. The exceptional, “god-chosen” nation tops the hierarchy and maintains it by god-given power.
Never in the history of the US (starting with colonial times) Anglo-Saxons acted as peacemakers. It is embedded in their psyche to see that the contending sides fight their difference over and the stronger triumphs. “Invite all leaders for constructive talks on a complete restructuring of the East-West cooperation agenda”? Dream on, Ed. The US could hypothetically call upon all interested sides to get together but only to be told to “behave or else.” Except, the obstinate Russia and increasingly ambitious China reject America’s moral and civilizational superiority and refuse to accept places in the hierarchy of nations which are designated to them by the Hegemon. Hence they, particularly Russia, should be taught a lesson. That’s the essence of American approach to the Ukraine-Europe-Russia conflict and this is why the US cannot play a constructive role in its resolution.
Mar 15, 2014 Dmitry Mikheyev
Unfortunately, events in Ukraine are far more serious than “stage-managed” “mis-adventure” and Amateur Night at the Apollo Theater. And the question they raise is more profound than the question of integrity of journalists and politicians. (Re: Anthony & Eric)
The real question is: Do democratic countries have legal and moral rights to instigate and perpetrate a Coup D’état against a legitimate government? Indeed, why not help a poor, suffering nation to overthrow tyrannical, dictatorial or totalitarian regime? Why not, if it is done in the name of equality, liberty and pursuit of happiness and if it is done by the people themselves?
Of course Coup D’état in Ukraine is not the first but it is the latest and so far the most successful application of Stealth Method of “spreading democracy and progress.” For two decades hundreds of Western NGOs were “educating” masses in democracy, freedom-loving and other Western values. Simultaneously a thousand or two of enthusiasts were carefully selected and trained in street-fighting.
The algorithm works like this: When the right moment comes (war in 1917, or economic crises, or ethnic tensions, or the EU offer), when drastic deterioration of the situation drives tired, frustrated and angry people to the streets in legitimate and peaceful protests, throw in those “brave, freedom-loving enthusiasts.” It doesn’t matter that these activists — idealists, professional revolutionaries, nationalists, mercenaries, thugs and criminals — are driven by both good and evil motives, by love or hatred or greed. Their energy and enthusiasm, their willingness to kill and sacrifice their own lives decide the outcome of the “battle for freedom.”
Although the surreptitious method of overthrowing the regime is painstaking and long, and its outcome is not always certain, it has numerous advantages over the “liberation” through direct military intervention. It looks more humanitarian, legitimate and it is certainly more efficient than the other. Consider that it took some three trillion dollars, seven thousand dead and some thirty five thousand of wounded and crippled good American boys to “liberate” Iraq and Afghanistan. Compare this to five billion dollars spent in Ukraine. Stealth Method of “spreading democracy and progress” proved efficient in the overthrowing Czar’s tyranny, Communist Dictatorship, the yoke of oligarchy or a foreign oppressor… What’s wrong with this creeping, stealth form of world war?