Something that
has been bothering me almost on a daily basis is reading the constant and
distorted attacks to Vladimir Putin promoted by respectable newspapers and
magazines such as “Estadão” and “Veja”, for example, as well as other vehicles
which are strongly influenced by the forgers, I mean, the trend-setters.
I´m talking
specifically about what´s currently happening in part of the Ukraine, i.e.,
Crimea and the Eastern provinces — a region that might also possibly include
part of the south of the country —, whose population identifies itself as being
more Russian than potential members of the European Union. The EU by the way
was and still is a “good idea” and must remain cohesive, but recently it has
been slipping in the economic aspect, as some of its countries have been
plagued with terrible management and an excess of unemployment – countries like
Greece, Italy, Spain and others.
Such
difficult moment of the EU in fact may very well be directly influencing this
desire of the “russified” Ukrainians to become Russian citizens. Had Russia
been in a current crisis, facing anarchy and unemployment, perhaps the “Rusky”
Ukrainians might prefer instead to be part of the EU.
Anyway, the
question is: “shouldn´t the interested parties be able to decide their own
future?” Crimea´s own population had the initiative of opting for the Russian
citizenship, something they had kept for decades until the dissolution of the
former Soviet Union. Even the most fanatic Putin enemies don´t have the courage
to argue that the Crimean and Eastern Ukraine´s separatists are being coerced
to prefer getting under the Russian “wing”. In fact, a referendum in
Crimea recently proved unequivocally such a desire.
Should V. Putin
pretend to be deaf in face of these appeals? If he did so, he would be
called a coward.
Let us imagine
— just for the sake of argument — that in Mexico, in a long stretch of land
neighboring the American border, there were a few provinces inhabited by
US-descendants who spoke English and had habits similar to the Americans. Let
us then imagine that those inhabitants, although legally Mexicans, insisted on
a topical separation, aiming for an American citizenship. If such movements
were antagonized by Mexican soldiers, with arrests and deaths among the
“separatists”, it is almost certain that Barack Obama would take action,
perhaps even armed action, to protect the “revolted” ones. For sure, the
American electorate would pressure Obama towards that and would certainly call
him a coward if he didn´t act accordingly.
Well, that is
exactly what has happened and is still happening with Putin, who is forced to
be sympathetic to the separatists´ cause. I don´t believe this rebellion of the
Crimeans and the inhabitants of Eastern Ukraine was forged by Putin,
considering the huge risks of a bloody conflict against the EU, NATO and the
USA – something that always has an unpredictable outcome. Such a nightmare
would only harm the Russian economy, already victimized by economic, diplomatic
and financial embargoes. The weapons industry must be exultant with the
perspective of new profit.
Deep down, this
“bellicose carnival” against Putin hides the American and European desire of
not losing a region which has a big substantial weight. It is far from being a
defense of abstract and legal values such as the Ukrainian sovereignty.
In an article
published by newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo” on September 11th, 2014,
page A22, (titled “Desire for Independence”), the brilliant and experienced
journalist Gilles Lapouge, who lives in France, concisely lectures about the
various independence movements which have been scaring many European countries.
Despite being “separatists”, such movements have been considered normal, even
tolerable. They have not been “criminalized”, or “putinized”, by the media. In
fact, their leaders have barely been mentioned at all.
Nevertheless,
the Eastern Ukrainians´ and Crimeans´ desire for independence has been
considered proof that Putin wants to “invade”, “annex”, “take possession” of
other countries, in an attempt to “increase his Empire” and reignite the Cold
War.
These critics
have to have a lot of nerve to distort in such a manner what has been going on
in the Ukraine. In the issue of the Ukraine, at least, Putin has been a victim
of a lie promoted almost unanimously by the international press.
Gilles Lapouge
— who by the way does not defend Putin — reminds us in his article that
approximately half the Scottish people want their country to be separated from
the United Kingdom. In Belgium, the Neo-Flemish Alliance has declared
itself separated. In Spain, the “Basque Country” has never given up the idea of
becoming a separate nation – even getting to the point of employing terrorist
actions at some point.
On November 9 —
as reported by the same respected Gilles Lapouge — Catalonia will also decide
through a referendum whether to be independent from Spain. In Turin, a rich
region in Northern Italy, the population also wants to separate from the much
poorer Southern part of the country. In France, the island of Corsica remains
“boiling” in its desire for independence. However, almost nothing has been
published in the press regarding those subjects. Why is it then that only in
Ukraine´s case, with separatists dying by the hundreds, has a “big baddie”
(i.e., Putin) been chosen?
As an avid
reader of a big newspaper from São Paulo, I read almost on a daily basis most
of the opinionative articles, especially those which deal with international
issues. Most of those articles are written by journalists in English and then
very well translated into Portuguese. When the subject is “V. Putin’ you can
tell by the writer´s name whether or not the article will defend Israel’s
indirect rights, which are as a rule hostile to Putin and Russia. Everything
Putin says is distorted on purpose. Zero mental honesty.
What is the
most probable explanation for this systematic attack from the media (mainly
writers racially linked to Israel) against Putin and its government? The answer
is simple: the fact that Russia – and consequently V. Putin — is an ally of
Syria and helps the Arab country in many ways, including – as everything points
out to — supplying semi-artisanal missiles. Syria, on its turn, as a supporter
of Hamas, probably sends those same missiles to the Palestinians in Gaza, who
torment Israel, who in turn retaliates in a large scale. If the USA, NATO and
the EU start a fight against Russia, this will certainly weaken or perhaps even
stop Russian support to Syria. As a consequence, Syria will stop sending
weapons to Hamas. And there it is: a logical explanation for the international
(as well as Brazilian) press campaign of defamation against Putin.
Anyway,
everything suggests that the massive campaign promoted by the international
press against Putin´s position regarding the Ukraine has its roots in the
patriotism of journalists racially linked to Israel. War, in any country,
increases the patriotism of its citizens.
When Israel
started its declared war against Hamas — as it happened in the recent invasion
of the Gaza Strip —, even the most sensible Jews — favorable to the creation of
two states —, stood on their country´s side. The extremely remote possibility
of seeing their country defeated and destroyed has an emotional weight which is
much larger than the mere sentiment of justice that the few Jews who are
favorable to the Palestinian cause (i.e., for them to also have the status of
nation) have. Being a real war, patriotism prevails over everything else,
“forcing” a journalist to roll up his sleeves and defend his own country in the
best way he can: by writing - if necessary, even lying “in the name of his
country”. And that explains the evident distortions presented by most articles
which criticize V. Putin.
One of the most
overt misrepresentations of the Russian president´s words happened a few days
ago when, in a phone call with José Manuel Durão Barroso — the Portuguese
president of the European Commission—, he said, “he could take control of Kiev
within two weeks”.
Obviously, what
Putin actually meant to say was that he had absolutely no intention of invading
the Ukraine because, after all, if he wanted that, he would have been able to
do that in just a few days, considering the immense military power he has.
It is clear
that the spirit of his phrase was the latter, and not the former. Even the
Russian Minister for International Relations has already expressly said that
Putin has been quoted out of context. He wouldn´t be foolish enough to say
something with such intentions to someone as the president of the European
Commission, as if inviting and welcoming the attack of the powerful triad
formed by NATO, the USA and the EU. It would be suicide.
However, as it
was in public interest, most notably in Israel´s interest — something present
in almost every Western country — to demolish or at least weaken Russia, the
media chose to pretend to misinterpret Putin´s words, inverting their meaning.
In war, lying is a rule. And by the way, “data venia”, Durão Barroso should
have been more discreet. If in doubt regarding Putin´s meaning, he should have
promptly asked him whether he had the real intention of invading the Ukraine.
Therefore,
because of a misinterpreted sentence, thousands or even millions may lose their
lives.
As I plan to
explain more thoroughly in my new website, www.governomundial.com.br (www.worldgovernment.com), these campaigns which encourage war
must stop before it´s too late. Every dweller of this planet must get used to
reading the news (whether in newspapers, magazines or the internet)
suspiciously, because man, the animal, has an incoercible – such a pretty word
for such an ugly subject - calling for mental dishonesty.
If V. Putin
deserves to be censored, it must be for other reasons.
(September 11,
2014)
