WHY DO THE RULERS OF THE WEST NEED 'A BLACK RUSSIA'? PART 2

Many people will remember the old phrase, 'better Red than dead.' Well, the modern equivalent, as it applies to concept of Russia, could be that of 'It is better for Russia to be perceived of and actualised into being the enemy of the West, than the friend or partner of the West.' 

How unbelievably ridiculous, that the prevailing mindset of the west should be to have the Russian Federation as an enemy of the west, or, rather, to have the west as the enemy of the Russian Federation, than for both hemisphere to be working as partners for a peaceful and better world?

That we should still have the world divided up, for all intents and purposes, as between the White countries of the West, and the actual and politically Black countries of the rest of the world? Between the Black and White armies or forces, if you like, but and analogy in which the Black forces or armies have more 'right', if not might, on their sides than the White forces.

Thus we have the situation where President Putin is being painted with the same 'demonising brush' which was used to paint other national leaders. President Putin is being caricatured in the very same manner that many popular national leaders were caricatured by the West, before they were eventually deposed and/or killed. For this, we can consider the fate of African freedom fighters over the past century, including Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, and move on to others during this century, including Saddam Hussein, Muamar Gaddafi, Fidel Castro, the leaders of Iran, and, more recently, President Assad in Syria.

It is very difficult to see how the Russian Federation will be able to throw of the 'role of the enemy', which the West has ascribed to it, as I cannot think of a precedent in which this has been done. It did not happen in the case of, say President Assad or President Gaddafi, both of whom had, at one time, been 'rehabilitated' and befriended by the West, but only to have it turned against them when they find it convenient to do so. 

Why should it be any different in the case of President Putin, even though it is patently clear that he does not want him or the Russian Federation to have to play the role of designated enemy?

It might well be the case that the situation will improve until more sagacious leaders take power in Western Europe and America - though it appears that neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are in contention to be described as such. But, in the meantime, it would appear that President Putin will have to continue to follow his own path and do what he considers to be in his country's best interests. While he remains willing to working openly and in good faith with any prospective partners in the west, who are willing to work with the Russian Federation for a more peaceful and prosperous world.