While this meme may have had some grains of truth in the past, it is much more questionable today. Despite this, the above meme is still in constant circulation, and, with tensions rising over the illegal Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory, it seems to be gaining a new lease on life.
But just exactly how false is it?
Looking at Central Asia on the map, we see that it shows US bases in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and of course Afghanistan, from which the US pulled out earlier this year.
However, the US never had bases in Kazakhstan or Pakistan beyond temporary logistic cooperation or humanitarian efforts, during floods and earthquakes. As for the bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, they have both closed, one in 2005 and the other in 2014.
As of today, this entire area, supposedly on the borders of Russia, is devoid of US bases.
Of course, US forces are currently increasing a rather minor presence in Eastern Europe, with occasional training operations with NATO partners and Ukrainian forces. But this is clearly being done in response to long-running Russian aggression, including the invasion and long-term occupation of the territory of its neighbour, so this can hardly be seen as disproportionate.
Conclusion: this is a fake meme that reveals either Russian paranoia or else a sinister attempt to promote U.S. isolationism in order to facilitate Russian expansionism.
Colin, you are right to say that the US doesn't have Central Asian bases, and so that map needs to be redrawn. Also the size of the bases needs to be shown in some way so that small bases and large bases are differentiated. The size of the US presence in Europe is a small fraction of what it was during the Cold War. But Russia has not invaded the Ukraine. The US spent $5bn on the destabilisation of the Ukraine (source: Victoria Newland leak), a country that is vital to Russian security but entirely irrelevant to the US. True, Russia did take the Crimea, where it has a long-term naval base, and which is heavily ethnic-Russian anyway, but did so without firing a shot. It hoped to replicate that in the east of the Ukraine, and sent the little green men to organise protests, but found out that Russian-speaking ethnic-Ukrainians in Kharkov don't necessarily want territorial fusion with Russia. They were more successful in Donetsk (50% ethnic-Russian - Ukrainians claim Russian ex-cons were heavily settled in the city), but Kiev itself has refused to negotiate any autonomy for the eight provinces that were not traditionally Ukrainian and that are overwhelmingly Russian-speaking. A country cannot offer itself as a base from which other countries can pose a threat to a neighbour without reprisals. Syria has found that Israel does not accept Iranian bases in Syria. The refused to allow Cuba to be a nuclear weapons base aimed at the US. Russia totally does have the right to declare war on the Ukraine if it looks like entering NATO. The Russians have consistently made it clear that a deal whereby the Ukraine stays outside of NATO and the EU and effectively becomes a neutral country would be acceptable to Moscow.
ReplyDeleteFactually you haven't told me anything I don't know, but I see you have bought the Kremlin line that certain parts of Ukraine are "kinda sorta" parts of Russia. That notion, if applied in a more general sense, is pretty much a recipe for endless war almost everywhere. Parts of all sorts of countries are "kinda sorta" parts of other countries and vice versa. The fact is that all regions of the Ukraine, including the Crimea, voted decisively for inclusion in an independent Ukraine in the 1991 referendum. So, Russia has quite literally crossed a line, and anyone supporting it to that degree is either a Putin shill or a just bit dim. The principal reason the Ukraine is interested in joining NATO is because it is next to Russia and Russia is what it is - a corrupt pseudo-Tsarist entity run by power-hungry thugs.
Deleteffs, Everyone who disagrees with me ‘is either a Putin shill or a just bit dim’. Ought to be better than that, Col. People debating honestly, trying to ascertain objective facts in this complex and murky world, do not use lines like that—but propagandists pushing a particular narrative do …Perhaps even a USG/Pædo Joe shill. See, we can all play this game, doesn’t get us anywhere, only sows and entrenches division. (D&C tactics—77 Bde? (Good fun, this game, isn’t it?))
DeleteSignificant nations commonly regard certain areas as their ‘backyard’, and USG has not been shy to intervene aggressively when it felt its backyard being encroached upon: Cuban missile crisis (where USG took world to the brink of Armageddon over Soviet missiles in Cuba aimed at the American mainland, placed in response to US missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet motherland—didn’t give a toss about Soviet missiles aimed at Britain, France and West Germany, we could all die in nuclear fire as far as they were concerned, but threaten Washington and it’s Armageddon Time; placing us in Arnold Toynbee’s words in a position of facing ‘annihilation without representation’), Grenada invasion, the funding and arming of the Contra rebels to oust Nicaragua’s government, supporting coups throughout Latin America, etc. ffs, USG laid claim to the entire Western hemisphere (excepting contemporarily ‘existing colonies or dependencies of any European power’) with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.
About that 1991 referendum—which one, the March or December one? On 17 March, >58% of Ukrainian electorate (>70% of turnout) voted for the preservation of a successor federation to the USSR and almost 67% of electorate (>80%) of turnout) voted for Ukraine being in that union. But that vote doesn’t count apparently—good old ‘democracy’: If the vote doesn’t go my way the first time, we’ll just keep voting until it does.
Contrary to the beliefs of 4th of July-celebrating Yank-wannabes, USG has never been a good friend to Britain, since the Treaty of Paris was being reneged on before its signatures’ ink was even dry. We were in a virtual cold war with them until ‘The Great Rapprochement’ at the end of the 19th Century, that cold war going hot 1812–14, and almost going hot again on numerous occasions (e.g. Arbuthnot and Ambrister affair in 1818, their supporting Canadian rebels 1837–39, ‘Pig War’ of 1859 and resulting 12-year armed standoff, etc.). Since then, the ‘Special Relationship’ has been rather one-sided, from USG’s shutting Britain out of the Atomic Bomb programme in violation of previous agreements, to refusing to extradite IRA terrorists or shut off IRA funding from NORAID. The Suez stab in the back was a prime example, when USG sided with the Soviets to back an Egyptian dictator against their allies, Britain and France, a mere 3 years after all three countries had fought side by side in Korea (with us again suffering the Eternal Yank Friendly Fire(*)) and barely ten years after fighting against Germany and Japan, threatening to crash Sterling (and, presumably unknown to us, even contemplating military action against us). Later, USG pressured us to accede to Icelandic demands during the ‘Cod War’, Johnny-Come-Lately Iceland more important to USG than the ally of three wars. USG even protect their spies’ wives after mowing down our citizens on our roads.
(* Friendly Fire is a perennial problem for militaries, occurring even in peacetime training, but f**k, sometimes the Yanks don’t even seem to be trying.)
Enlist in Zir Majesty’s Diversity-Hires and fight for Pædo Joe and Kiev if you want to, but try not to take the rest of us with you. I’ve no wish to die in nuclear fire for countries few Brits or Yanks can find on a map and that have been Russian longer than the United States has existed.
ScotchedEarth,
DeleteTry to be concise to avoid giving off the impression that you are just throwing up a lot of extraneous shit because you can't tackle the points made.
Well the US is a fake country and the largest government in history so I don't care if Russia nuked England, the USA should mind their business and break apart already. Screw Russia, I don't care about them zit any country larger than Lichtenstein is inherently tyrannical and should be deconstructed.
ReplyDeleteThis article isn't consistent with Colin's previous themes. I recall reading an article here years ago about how the Irish had a contrived identity, deliberately anti-British, but nevertheless contrived. My point is Ireland was to Britain (historically) a buffer state, and Colin understands that. Therefore, this article, as I stated, is inconsistent with the author's own view of the world, and that is, great powers have always, justifiably, required a buffer zone.
ReplyDeleteBe sure to dig up the article you vaguely refer to, as we'd all hate to see you completely misconstruing something I wrote somewhere about something else. Regarding buffer zones, Russia, at about 100 times the size of Britain, is clearly buffer zone inside a buffer zone inside a buffer zone with plenty to spare, even without the Ukraine.
DeleteI google searched affirmativeright ireland and nothing came up. nevertheless, you do have this article, and I am sure you can find it as I suspect it is the only one on ireland that you have. regarding buffer zones being a necessity for small nations only, I am not familiar with this theory. the united states requires a buffer zone, and it is a large country. they have made sure that canada and mexico are pliant states; that is no accident. in any event, russia displays the same attitude towards ukraine as britain did of ireland, and in some quarters, still does. indeed, to this day the north of ireland is british territory, and that is no accident, either. I enjoyed your article;
DeleteI only responded to it because of this rather glaring inconsistency.
https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-baby-killing-vote-and-loss-of-irish.html?m=1
DeleteThat article is not a justification of Ireland being an English buffer state but rather a critique of the rather fake, brittle, and self-defeating way they chose to resist English domination.
DeleteI generally approve of your efforts to debunk lazy Nazitard thinking on the dissident right, but this takes it too far. Regardless of the specific number of military bases here or there, the joint war of global conquest fought by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. before their falling out is a thing that happened, and not just a thing that happened, but a basic concept of analysis without which none of 20th century history makes any sense.
ReplyDeleteOne doesn't need to endorse on an ethical level Russia's claim to suzerainty over all or part of Ukraine, or give the remotest damn whether Ukrainian nationalism is legit or cooked up, to note that both America and Russia are acting there as imperial powers, that all the democracy rhetoric is delusive, and that, by ordinary historical standards, it is America that should do the bulk of the giving way here to avoid an armed conflict no-one needs and few want.