At the end of the Cold War, a set of treaties and agreements signed between the Soviet and US authorities ensured that the process of dissolution of the USSR took place relatively peacefully.
Perhaps the most iconic promise was that NATO would not expand “one inch” beyond a unified Germany. In addition, other treaties such as the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty), the CFE (Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe) and the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty). , medium-range nuclear forces treaty) provided a ground of stability in Europe and strategic parity between Russia and the United States.
Such commitments made during the Cold War were successively abandoned unilaterally by the Americans.
The emptying of Russian positions in the UN Security Council, the US support for separatists in the wars of secession in the Caucasus, in addition to the humiliating conditions for financing at the IMF and the World Bank, associated with the policy of siege against Russia orchestrated by the advance of NATO , are just a few examples that can be cited to demonstrate that the Western vision was not just unipolar, but above all, one-dimensional, whose purpose was to weaken Moscow.
The process of expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, in addition to being formulated in opposition to Russia, was also constituted in an offensive way. This stance is evident in the Western alliance’s unilateral military actions in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many others around the world.
The US stance, therefore, not only paved the way for creating a terrain of uncertainty in Europe, but also designed itself to exclude Russian demands from the European security architecture.
In this process, Ukraine was used by the West as a stage for these policies of provocation and exclusion of Russia. Over the years, NATO and the European Union have co-opted local political elites to fuel and sediment hatred against Russians in Ukrainian society.
The result of the foolishness and lack of control of these policies is responsible for the repression of ethnic Russians in the Donbass region, resulting in thousands of deaths under the auspices of the Ukrainian authorities. Since 2014 there have been at least 14,000 deaths, mostly of women and children, for which there is no regret in the West or media attention.
Another effect of the tragedy in the Donbass — and of the Russophobia artificially fueled for years in Ukraine — was the formation of the world’s largest militarized Nazi regiment: the Azov Battalion, whose financial and military support comes courtesy of Washington.
The capillarity and influence of these groups in Ukrainian politics was institutionalized, allowing them to play a central role in the country’s Executive and Legislative decisions. The incorporation of these ultranationalist battalions into the Ukrainian National Guard, in addition to conferring the same functions as the Armed Forces, also granted them the role of true political police, conditioning decision-making processes in the institutional context to the scrutiny of these militias.
The battles in Mariupol are the greatest representation of the firepower and military capability that the Azov Battalion has in Ukrainian territory. From a humanitarian point of view, as it became clear, these groups do not hesitate to use civilians as human shields and weapons of war. Indeed, such tactics are in line with the Zelensky government’s own directives, revealing the close and spurious links between Kiev and extremist parties.
The Western stance and that of its media outlets simplifies or downplays the role and influence of these groups in Ukraine.
The modus operandi is similar to the Western stance on Nazi rise in Germany in the 1920s. At that time, the German Nazi party received just over 1% of the vote; in the following elections, in 1932, this same political group had already won more than 36% of the votes. The end result of this story is well known.
If it is clear that Western countries coexist or tolerate institutionalized fascism within the state in the name of Russophobia, at least since the 1920s, it would not be possible to expect any change in the current situation.
Despite continuous attempts to discredit the Soviet Union’s historic contribution to the fight against Nazism and historical revisionism, the legacy of those who gave their lives for the victory against fascism in World War II must never be forgotten.
The scenario that is now being outlined rejects impositions of unique truths and particular worldviews. The monocratic agenda and the exclusionary civilizational dictates, characteristic of North American unipolarity, find a brake in Russia. The redirection, already designed for some time, points to a multipolar and polycentric international order.
