NATO's Dirty Little Ukrainian Agenda
Facts and Events the War Propaganda Machinery Conveniently Forgot About
In today's contemporary setting, finance has evolved into a form of warfare conducted through non-military means. Its objective mirrors that of traditional military conquest: the acquisition of land and essential infrastructure, along with the collection of rents in the form of tribute. In the present era, this appropriation primarily occurs through mechanisms like debt servicing and privatization. This approach characterizes neoliberalism, a strategy that exerts control over economies by indebting their governments, and exploits unsustainably high debts as a tool to gain control over public assets at distressed valuations. This phenomenon is at the core of the modern New Cold War. With support from institutions such as the IMF and the European Central Bank (ECB) acting as enforcers, effectively extending the financial arm of NATO, the ultimate goal is for U.S. and allied investors to seize the benefits that authoritarian leaders have extracted from the public assets of nations like Russia, Ukraine, and other post-Soviet economies in those regions, as well as any remaining valuable resources.
In a 2014 interview published in The New York Review of Books, George Soros presents his perspective on what steps should be taken to support Ukraine. He suggests that the country should “encourage its companies to enhance their management practices by forming partnerships with European counterparts.”1
Consequently, this implies that authoritarian leaders should divest significant ownership stakes in their enterprises to individuals from Western nations. By doing so, the Western countries would have a vested interest in safeguarding these companies. This dynamic could exert pressure on their respective governments to shift the tax burden from the affluent to the workforce. Additionally, it could assist these leaders in liquidating their holdings and retaining their gains in financial centers like London and New York, contributing to the economies of the West rather than that of Ukraine.
THE FALLOUT OF THE 2014 UKRAINIAN COUP
The outcome of replacing Soviet communism with a free-market system didn't unfold as anticipated, particularly from the Soviet perspective. Mikhail Gorbachev and his allies envisioned that the end of the Cold War would enable Russia to dismantle the arms race, which had drained resources away from producing consumer goods and adequate housing. Beyond the anticipated peace dividend, the goal was to establish a feedback mechanism for prices that would enhance industrial productivity and elevate living standards.
The Western victory in terms of ideology, particularly the agenda of neoliberalism marked by anti-labor, anti-government sentiments, and a pro-Wall Street strategy, was solidified at the Houston summit in July 1990. Russian Prime Minister Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders embraced the World Bank/USAID plan that involved shock therapy, privatization, deindustrialization, and a wiping out of domestic personal savings (labeled as an “overhang”). This approach began by impoverishing the general population and concentrating an unequal distribution of wealth among an overclass, marking one of the most imbalanced wealth distributions in the Northern Hemisphere.
U.S. advisors from the Cold War era encouraged Russia and other post-Soviet nations to transfer formerly public assets and property to individuals, with a preference for plant managers and political insiders. The narrative put forth was that the identity of the recipients didn't hold significant importance, as private ownership in itself would lead to the reorganization of production along the most profitable avenues. The success story of Pinochet's Chile was presented as a shining example, sparking a right-wing Pinochetista movement within Russia.
The Communist Party nomenklatura, Komsomol leaders like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Red Directors were enticed by these neoliberal assurances to hand over natural resources, real estate, infrastructure, and factories to themselves. The self-righteous claim was that property operates under a logic of self-interest that ultimately serves the greater good by allowing wealth to trickle down and uplift the broader population. However, in practice, the “free market” as touted by the neoliberal doctrine transformed into a euphemism for systematic plunder. Supported by U.S. backing and enforced through Yeltsin's presidential decrees (unconstitutionally and against the objections of the Duma), ownership of formerly publicly owned investments and natural resources were transferred to managers who amassed their fortunes by selling off their acquisitions to Western investors.
Your Support Fuels the Continuation of In-Depth, Unbiased Journalism.
Unlike succumbing to commercial influences or chasing popular fads, I steer clear of exploiting media exposure and catering to populist opinions for personal benefits. Operating without ads, this platform relies on reader support to maintain its open access and impartiality.