BRICS countries can prevent Western-provoked catastrophe

Russia, South Africa, and the other BRICS countries opposed the unipolar world order and put non-violent methods to transform it at the forefront, says the writer.

Russia, South Africa, and the other BRICS countries opposed the unipolar world order and put non-violent methods to transform it at the forefront, says the writer.

Published Feb 26, 2024



Exactly 10 years ago, in February 2014, a coup d’état took place in Kyiv with the direct participation of Western countries.

The legitimate president of the country was forced to flee and a nationalist puppet government came to power. It launched a chain of events, as a result of which Russia took back the Crimea to save the Russian people in the peninsula from the bloody massacre.

Moreover, hostilities began in the east of Ukraine and their culmination became the beginning of the Special Military Operation in February 2022. I am aware that for many esteemed South African readers the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, especially due to the passage of time and distance, has just become another hot spot among others on the globe.

At the same time, the conflict is by no means accidental. In fact, it is a logical consequence of the Western policy of maintaining global hegemony, from which the rest of the world, including Africa, Asia, Latin America, has been suffering for centuries.

Russia, South Africa, and the other BRICS countries opposed the unipolar world order and put non-violent methods to transform it at the forefront.

First of all, we are talking about economic and cultural cooperation. However, the self-proclaimed hegemon, represented by the United States and its satellites, is not ready to take it and fights to maintain its status by all means, including the most inhumane ones.

So, my task is to provide our honourable readers with a specific example of how the West uses the most dishonourable methods to achieve its goals.

One of them is the preservation of a global apartheid system, where there is Washington and the rest, ranked depending on their willingness to sacrifice their own sovereignty for the sake of the US interests.

In the book, The Grand Chessboard, the American geostrategist of Polish origin Mr (Zbigniew) Brzezinski, who worked for the Pentagon for years with the arrogance common to high-ranking American politicians, speculated on what the United States should do in this or that region of the world to maintain and strengthen its hegemony.

It is not surprising that a part of his work is devoted to Russia, in particular what should be done to contain and “restrain” it. I would like to quote a book published in 1997: “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical centre because its very existence as an independent state helps transform Russia.”

We can see with half an eye that Mr Brzezinski’s views Ukraine as a tool for transforming Russia. All of this is presented under the guise of protecting US national security, although it does not answer the question why Washington protects its security thousands of kilometres away from its borders.

Nevertheless, the plan to destabilise the situation in Russia was announced and adopted decades ago, and February 2014 just marks the beginning of its active phase, the overthrow of the legally elected Ukrainian government, which finally put this country on the path of terror, nationalist intoxication and falling into the abyss of Nazi mayhem.

Ukraine turned out to be the most convenient country for the US from a geographical point of view. I am talking about Nazi aspirations systematically supported by Western intelligence and the initial division of the country into the eastern part – Russian-speaking and western – historically gravitating towards Poland and Hungary, which once were part of them.

With such segregation, it did not require much effort to convince ordinary Ukrainians that the country’s internal troubles were to blame for its eastern neighbour and eastern regions of Ukraine that refused to recognise the results of the Kyiv Maidan.

If favourable conditions had developed in other countries, Western puppet masters would undoubtedly have taken advantage of them. However, it is happening right now in one way or another.

Taking into consideration the above mentioned, Westerners could not help but understand that it would lead to war. Ukrainian nationalists, raised with the help of American money and Western weapons, strived for a specific goal – not just to come to power, but to turn the country into anti-Russia.

On February 23, 2014, immediately after the coup d’etat and the opposition’s coming to power, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine voted for the abolition of law “On the principles of the State language policy”, which had been in force since August 10, 2012.

The document granted the Russian language and languages of national minorities regional status in those areas where they are native to at least 10% of the population. The abolition of the law sparked protests in astern Ukraine, where the Russian-speaking population predominates.

The vector of action of the new government was clear and could not be accepted by the Russian-speaking regions in the eastern part of the country.

The subsequent split in Ukrainian society and the beginning of the so-called counter-terrorist operation conducted by Kyiv nationalists against their own fellow citizens became a convenient reason for the West to bring once again its old, so-beloved allegations of Russian aggression.

They say that Russia will attack Europe and use it as a reason to drain funds from their scanty budgets to support Ukraine.

In the meantime, these so-called “democrats” do not take into account the opinion of their voters – recent protests in Germany and France, the economic locomotives of Europe, serve as evidence.

But do not be deceived: Russia has never performed colonial policy. Talking about false accusations of potential Russian invasion of Europe in an interview to American journalist Tucker Carlson, Russian President V Putin summed up: “Why would we do that?

We simply don't have any interest. It’s just threat mongering.” Their true fear is a loss of power as well as possibility to dictate their will to the rest of the world and to continue draining resources from the developing countries.

Democracy and human rights for them are just nice words, a smokescreen that was dispelled after a wind blow from the Global South. Nevertheless, the baseless statements on potential Russian aggression were immediately picked up by Western-controlled media and Russia once more became the main threat to freedom and democracy.

However, history, despite all the attempts of the “civilised” world to rewrite it, still remembers all the acts of invasion from such a humane and enlightened Europe into our country: 1610 – Polish intervention, 1812 – French, 1914 and 1941 – German.

However, historical facts do not bother Western elites, who long ago appointed Russia as their main enemy.

The enemy is needed to maintain the appropriate public’s spirit, justify fabulous spendings on armaments, as well as adopt necessary laws.

The entire power of Western media, social networks, even search engines works to maintain this image.

The Kyiv Maidan is a well-planned operation to destabilise the situation on the western borders of Russia, the final task of which is to strategically defeat our country. The special military operation is an act of self-defence, caused, among other things, by the approach of Nato countries towards the borders of Russia.

To our greatest regret, Ukraine was doomed to sacrifice itself for the geopolitical ambitions of the West.

But, dear readers, is this the first country whose fate was predetermined in the quiet offices of Washington?

The invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime was the result of never-proven allegations of biological weapons development.

Libya, like Yugoslavia, was destroyed by the Nato coalition without UN Security Council resolution.

This list is far from being full, but an obvious conclusion offers itself: any conflict becomes legitimate if it meets the interests of the West.

Any manifestation of sovereignty serves as a red rag to a bull. The tools for destroying those countries which departed from the will of Washington differ, but the result remains the same. Unfortunately, no country trying to pursue an independent policy is immune from this, but the world has entered an era of change.

* Malenko is the consul-general of Russia in Cape Town

Cape Times

Related Topics: