One can’t help but notice the geographic pattern formed by the three countries that are currently in the United States’ crosshairs, roughly across the middle of the globe.
Beyond that fanciful note, the governments of these three countries may appear to be very different from one another, however they share a crucial element: the Catholic Latin American, the Muslim Mediterranean, and the Orthodox Eastern European, are all located on the left end of the political spectrum.
Although Ukraine has been a ‘capitalist’ country since the fall of the Soviet Union, its current president is allied with a Russia that, as I have noted before, has not thrown the socialist baby out with the communist bathwater (demonstrators recently tore down the statue of Lenin in Kiev); moving westward, Syria has been ruled by the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party since the 1960’s, and is the only truly secular Arab state (some of my readers believe this was also the case for Libya, but although all religions were tolerated, Gaddafi declared Islam to be the only universal religion in his Socialist Republic). And across the Atlantic, facing the Pacific, since Hugo Chavez became President, Venezuela has sought to implement the economic independence and equitable distribution of revenues called for by the 19th century revolutionary Simón Bolívar.
This could be considered a coincidence if all three regimes did not also share two other characteristics: their relationship with Russia and their relevance to the supply of oil.
The illogical desire of the Ukrainian people to be accepted as ‘Europeans’ given the EU’s dire economic situation, has been amply reported. Elements of the situation that have been given short shrift – at least in the Western MSM – include the fact that the Russia-Europe pipeline passes through Ukraine; that the leaders of the revolt have maintained World War II Nazi affiliations, and that they have been armed as no demonstrators in recent memory have. (Without arms, demonstrations remain demonstrations; they do not degenerate into civil war.)
As for Syria, let no one be deceived by references to Russia’s access to its Mediterranean seaport of Tartus; an Arab regime that is close to Iran by virtue of its religious affiliation to Shi’a Islam is on the other side of the ideological divide from, say, Al Sissi’s – or even Morsi’s – pro-capitalist, pro Western Egypt, not to mention Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies.
Washington’s three pronged aggression that almost spans the globe from West to East is not about democracy, or even replacing regimes that ‘have blood on their hands’. It represents a desperate attempt by the most powerful nation that has ever existed to maintain its dominance while the world increasingly rejects its values and goals. That is why we are seeing a united front between the younger generation of Islamic and left-wing activists: both are opposed to globalization and inequality.