For quite some years in the 1960s our main newspaper â€“ Dagens Nyheter â€“ asserted that the Vietnam affair was a war waged by the communists – Soviet Russia and China with North Vietnamese as mercenaries – against the people of South Vietnam. Today we would call such propaganda unbelievably stupid. How could anyone swallow that? In fact, it was a different time, and it was swallowed.
It was no secret that South Vietnam, a US vassal state, was headed by one or other dictator, appointed and dismissed (and occasionally murdered) by CIA. But such details didnâ€™t matter; in the fight against the profoundly evil world communism none of USâ€™s actions, no matter how grotesque, were debatable.
Now we are back on the same playing field. According to DN and the western mainstream the fighting in Ukraine is not just to blame on Russia; itâ€™s more exactly â€œPutinâ€™s warâ€. To achieve this level of wisdom a number of elementary facts and logical truisms have to be overlooked.
It seems first of all self evident that someone who starts a war must want that war. Russia under Putin had worked insistently for years to build friendly commercial and political relations with the western world, in order to benefit its own development. Putin had just come home from the Sochi Olympics where Russia had invested billions to enhance its good-will in the world. Around that time the President of Ukraine was presented an ultimatum from EU to turn down an economic proposition from Russia as a precondition for an agreement with EU.
It would have been suicide for Ukraine (as we can see now), with its essential economic ties with Russia, to surrender the EU ultimatum. It didnâ€™t, and the Maidan followed, exacerbated by neo-Nazi groups opening fire and throwing Molotov cocktails, the whole scenario with an unmistakable CIA scent all over it. The coup regime immediately demonstrated its hostility towards everything Russian and the possibility of the country eventually being overtaken by NATO became an obviousÂ threat.
That Russia reacted by annexing Crimea, protecting its large naval base from falling under NATO control, was naturally a defensive move, enhanced by the dominantly Russian populationâ€™s wishes, demonstrated with overwhelming majority in a referendum. Such was Putinâ€™s â€œcrimeâ€: a correction of history which should have taken place when Soviet Union collapsed, if the West had allowed itself some rational considerations instead of just wanting to annihilate Russia as much as possible.
The right-wing and anti-Russian coup urged people in the south-east to free themselves from Kiev rule. The rebel leaders hoped for Russian military intervention which they immediately learned they were not getting (one of the leaders then calling Russia â€œan enemyâ€). Russiaâ€™s policy has stayed the same ever since, communicated in words and actions over and over again: Ukraine (Crimea excluded) must remain a sovereign state with secured borders. The war must stop, and controversies be solved by negotiations, leading to some form of autonomy for the Donbas region.
But our media still labels this â€œPutinâ€™s warâ€! Recently our propaganda pamphlet Dagens Nyheter proudly presented â€œtwo recognized experts on Russiaâ€ (one Lilia Sjevtsova and one James Sherr). The female one (from Brookings Institution) had the superhuman capacity to creep into Putinâ€™s head and find out what he was thinking. After the successful Crimea expedition Putin thought, according to Lilia: â€œWhy not also take south-eastern Ukraine?â€ Well, he so much didnâ€™t want to take any part of Ukraine that he infuriated some rebel leaders. Lilia must have thought: â€œWhat the heck, facts have nothing to do with this!â€
Mr. Sherr feels important enough to personally overrule the Minsk agreement, which he considers incompatible with Ukraineâ€™s sovereignty, thus obviously disavowing Mr. Poroshenko himself. On Ms. Merkelâ€™s statement that there is no military solution he comments: â€œItâ€™s an extremely stupid clicheâ€.
Regardless of the Russian leaders’ aversion to the war in Ukraine, it is self evident that they wonâ€™t tolerate Kievâ€™s massacring of their countrymen in Donbas. Russia most certainly provides every kind of voluntary assistance a non-belligerent party is allowed, and maybe some more than that. For the West to moralize over Russiaâ€™s actions is presumptuous, to say the least, considering the 25 years of intense US/EU preparations for the present explosive situation.
The kind of Orwellian propaganda we have to consume day in and day out when we read our daily paper is hard to digest. (Luckily we can get the Internet version for free, which eases the pain.)