It’s not Ukrainians that the EU wishes to protect, it’s their lands and minerals
LAST JULY, when I wrote, and you were kind enough to print my views on the Ukrainian tragedy, I was conscious that it would offend some of those with pre-conceived views and lay myself open to invective – which it did. However, I was also conscious of a much more important aspect of my belief that the United States and Western Europe have used the historical tensions between the Slavic nations for their own benefit.
At the time I wrote, I could not understand why, at this time, the West had chosen to exploit the centuries old animosity of many Ukrainians towards Russia. Why had it chosen to invest such huge resources into the biggest and most sophisticated propaganda onslaught in history? One that consigns Joseph Goebbels’s Nazi ‘Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment’ to history as a ‘good first attempt’. Why had it decided to condition its peoples to accept the possibility of another European war – just as Germany did in the 1930s?
History shows us that the banding together of families into tribes, tribes into nations and nations into international alliances and the resulting conflicts between them have all been motivated by the desire to acquire territory and its natural resources, what the Germans expressed as Lebensraum.
Events and information which have recently become public have gone some way to answering my questions. Like many, I have been guilty of interpreting political actions in the terms of the Industrial Age, not the Post-Industrial Age. The ‘must haves’ of the world’s puppet masters have evolved from land, for its agricultural potential, through land for its common minerals, to land now for its rare earth minerals: those needed to sustain a post-industrial society.
Over the last three centuries, western nations have consumed natural resources at an avaricious rate but now realise that most of the lands they fought over are no longer of prime importance, because they lack the rare earth minerals desperately needed for the future. It is not Ukrainians that the EU wishes to protect by absorbing Ukraine, it is their lands (and the minerals thereunder) it wishes to acquire for exploitation. Why else would it risk continental conflict over a corrupt country?
Once again, we see the terrible, tragic price that is paid by ordinary people for their misfortune of living on lands with resources that others covet. The mouthpieces of the masters of the EU make a hypocritical furore about the sufferings of ordinary Ukrainians but the track record of those masters demonstrates where their true concerns lie. The sufferings of the multitude have never concerned those who incite and exploit conflict.
We see the US making renewed moves to take control of Greenland’s rare minerals whilst also demanding payback in rare minerals for the billions of dollars it has invested supplying arms to the Ukraine. Arms for which the US military-industrial complex has already extracted over $60bn from ordinary US citizens.
If the full terms of any agreement the US and Russia may make over the Ukraine ever become public, it will be interesting to know what secret codicils they will have made over exploitation of the Ukraine’s mineral reserves. One thing I will predict is that it will be hugely beneficial for US industrial and financial barons. It will also be interesting to follow developments in the impending conflict between the interests of the EU and the US in the Ukraine.
MICHAEL A WARD
Torteval