WHY DO THE RULING ELITES OF THE WEST, NEED A 'BLACK RUSSIA?

During the period of the decades between the 1950-1990s, Russia and China were the two countries that provided liberation movements in many countries, including African ones, with arms and other necessary support, in their struggles to liberate themselves from their colonial masters. In many cases, these colonial masters would have been British and French, aided and abetted by the Americans, or, especially in the case of the Americas, local dictators who were running their countries in accordance with the world view of the Americans. In South Africa and the former Rhodesia, which was to become Zimbabwe, the struggle was primarily against the Apartheid system set up by the white minority governments.

How ironic, then, that, in 2016, Russia, after the fall of  the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, and a period of respite in East-West military and political tension, should now find itself, effectively being categorised as 'Black Russia'? Russia, it seems to me, has been designated the 'place of darkest Europe', as it and its leader and government is demonised by the propaganda of the elite in the west.

Russia cannot do anything 'good' or meritorious, it would seem, other than to allow itself to become the 'whipped boy of the west', to become subservient and acquiesce to the role which the dominant western powers want it to play in international affairs. That of being 'a good boy', or, if you prefer, 'a good native' who obeys the white master. The Russians, whether they be of ethnic white or Asian origins, are viewed by the prevailing racist west European mindset as ideologically and culturally inferior to their western counterparts. The American and western European ruling elites do not see the people of the Russian Federation as equal to them. Just as how they do not see the Chinese and other non-westernEuropeans as equal to them.


But of course that would not be enough, to fully meet the role the west really wants Russia to play.  Which is that of 'the enemy.' A role which is more profitable for the dominant political and economic interests which underpin western foreign policies. 

These interests need Russia to become the spectre which is used to justify the need for the west to have a strong NATO and for the individual countries constituting it to have strong defence forces. Including nuclear weapons, and, yes, for Britain to renew its Trident nuclear submarines. It also needs a 'enemy Russia' to justify the maintenance of the west's weapons industries. And for the architects of the incipient European Union Army to have an additional raison detre' to argue the case for such an army.


To be continued.