Putin’s actions in Georgia and now Ukraine reflect eruptions of protest to a creeping NATO/EU/US „encirclement“ of Russia since the end of the Cold War. The West denies this completely (except by the war hawks/“terror-industrial complex“/Neo-Cons/neoliberals) – yet the process has been clear and too focused against Russia for far too long. It is as if the group named can only be satisfied by the end of Russia entirely.

Yet, we rarely hear any discussion in the West about whether this policy we are allowing the above named group to do is best for us. Why would we benefit from driving the Russians into increasing ultra-nationalism when this would mean the reawakening of the Cold War? How can that benefit us? Wouldn’t cooperative policies be better for the world? Have we discussed openly what we’re hoping to achieve from this policy? What are the costs of pushing Russia’s back to their wall? Couldn’t we have worked with Putin to achieve greater global harmony?

Given that the West failed to act to help democracy bloom in Russia when they needed this the most, haven’t we doomed democracy there and, thereby, manufactured the Russian threat and pushed them into it?The West is too determined to use the „old enemy“ Russia in a time when the above-named group is determined to push hard against Russia. As we see it, the West is using the „old enemy“ to distract the attention of their suffering majorities from their suffering and Putin has been using „encirclement“ fears to strengthen his own control over Russia.

Yet it is not that easy to avoid Western responsibility for antagonizing the Russians for some time — even if the above-named group works hard at doing so. We do create our own enemies.

(Jerrold Atlas, Psychohistoriker, Vermont, USA)