Two years after Maidan it is crystal clear that the Russian President’s KGB past taught him to combine a show of strength with remarkable restraint – much unlike his counterparts from intelligence who run the United States

The author of this article is Director of the Centre for Philosophical Practice (Brussels) and Adjunct Professor at the Department of Educational Foundations of the University of Saskatchewan. His current research program mainly deals with political philosophy and the philosophy of psychiatry.

He wrote this article especially for RI

One of two things. Either the Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded without delay to V.V. Putin (1952 – ), because, like political luminaries such as Kissinger, Carter and Obama, his atavistic imperialism deserves to be rewarded by the Western oligarchs, amazed as they are to find such a martial character, as much soaked in KGB’s gall than G.H.W. Bush was swimming in CIA’s honey. This is the option of the neoconservatives themselves, who would give a lot to place such a talented individual at the head of the US-American State. It is not necessary to repeat here the obvious validity of this opinion that is shared by the entire “international community.”

Or the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded to Putin because he is one of the few political creatures to fight tooth and nail for peace, democracy and human rights. Efficient, reliable, creative, visionary, and of exemplary probity, Putin brings together qualities that we rarely find among our contemporaries—and almost never in politics. Castro and Chavez were, in this respect, equally exceptional.

Let us remember, by the way, that the KGB—and especially its Foreign Intelligence service to which Putin belonged—was a secret service organically different from the CIA. While the members of the KGB were distinguished by their absolute loyalty to the Soviet people and nation (but not necessarily to the Communist Party and the Marxist-Leninist ideology), CIA members are apparently more inclined to cultivate fealty for the oligarchy and the liberal-capitalist ideology at work, than for the safety of their fellow citizens.

It seems that the US-American patriots rather belong to the US military itself. This is the opinion shared by humanists who, true to their Renaissance ideals, analyze world events in the light of the One, the Truth and the Good. A number of facts can be revisited from this point of view, which is often exemplified as well in the countries that are allegedly isolated from the “international community,” that is to say, less lyrically, countries that do not belong to the NATO sphere (see Chomsky).

In the West, we do not speak openly of colonialism since 1946, but that does not mean that the spirit of colonialism has disappeared, all the more so since the spirit of colonialism and the spirit of capitalism are arguably one.

In the ideological context of globalization, the “right to intervene” (1979) was first applied to obtain basically the same colonial result; then came the “duty to intervene” (1980); and lately the “responsibility to protect” populations endangered by their own government (2001).

The terms of this destructuring interventionism remained nebulous until 2013; they have become more transparent with the Ukrainian events, allowing moreover a retrospective light on the recent “spring” wars in Libya (2011) and Syria (2011).

Three facts that have managed to gain some media visibility in the NATO area (only to be immediately drowned in the proper war propaganda) deserve to be reminded :

Victoria Nuland’s conference during which she boasts the financial efforts made by the US to “democratize” Ukraine, an investment of no less than five billion dollars since 1991 (US-Ukraine Foundation Gala “Ukraine in Washington,” December 13, 2013); the phone call between the same V. Nuland and the US ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, making plain obvious the interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, and especially the outright control attempts of the “revolution” (6 February 2014); the phone call between Catherine Ashton and Foreign Minister Urmas Paet of Estonia, that states that snipers, not the police, have shot protesters (25 February 2014). In fact, the same “snipers” have targeted protesters and security forces in an apparent attempt to spring violence and to precipitate the coup.

The question is always the same: who benefits? Geopolitical stakes can be understood in many ways, but all converge on a focal point: the containment of Russia as a first step to its controlled demolition.

The coup orchestrated by the West in Maidan was supposed to guarantee many remarkable and immediate results:

the destruction of the Ukraine / Russia cooperation the acquisition at a low price of its Northeast arable land (the famous “black earth”) the mastering of the pipelines that supply the European market the taking of territories promising for hydraulic fracturing, and the appropriation of Sevastopol naval base (with its substructures in Mykolaiv, Kacha and Gvardeyskoye) and of the eastern Ukraine’s technoscientific parks (with its military industry and advanced aerospace.

If the paralysis of the Ukrainian society was not acquired quickly with the help of the well-known shock doctrine (see N. Klein), it would be in the short term and, failing that, a civil war would allow the total predation of the coveted resources. All the better if the Russians were drawn into the war: the Afghan scenario has aged very well. Heads I win, tails you lose.

In retrospect, therefore, we can only be amazed at the patience and unwavering Russian good will. In November 2013, Putin was still advocating tripartite negotiations with the European Union and Ukraine. If we actually do listen to what V.V. Putin says, we are struck by his attachment to the foundations of international law as they were established by the Treaties of Westphalia (1648).

Three principles, presupposing the legal equality between nation-states, must be respected:

the absolute sovereignty of the nation-state and therefore the right to political self-determination; compliance with international treaties; and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.

Isn’t he a perfect nominee for a Peace Prize?