Greetings Readers,

No president had ever been more committed to friendly relations with Russia than Bill Clinton, his former adversary inspired him. He routinely told his advisers to come up with more resources to ease Russians transformation into a  free market economy. However, his hopeful out-look did not hinder Clinton from advancing another geopolitical policy of NATO enlargement that most Russians found provocative and hostile to their homeland’s spere of influence.  

Realistically they asked could the U. S. deny that the advancement of NATO had an anti-Russian purpose. (Of course, several of in Clinton’s top Administrators agreed that it did; it was obvious) Wasn’t the ultimate purpose to check the Russian Bear’s influence? Many prospective members especially Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania welcomed the invitation to join the alliance in order to off-set the possibility of Russian expansion in the distant future.

Boris Yeltsin appealed to Clinton 1994 to not go head, refrain from his plan to encroach on Russian borders. The answer was always No. Clinton announced the U. S. would go ahead with the policy that only the enlargement of the alliance would give the post cold war world structure and stability. Bill Clinton was not the first to advocate a strong NATO position, Reagan and Gorbachev has fiction over the same issue. Reagan tentatively agreed, but later reneged as did three U.S. presidents coming after him.

In Reykjavik, Iceland in 1988 Mikhail Gorbachev told Reagan we understand the Cold War is drawing to a close, and we offer the following: We will destroy  our intermediate range SS-20 missiles in Europe, if you will remove your Pershing and Cruise missiles; We will permit Germany to become united, and accept a unified of East and West Germany; we will allow our satellite regimes in Eastern Europe to fall peacefully and become democratic; Russia will withdraw the Red Army from Eastern Europe, and we will allow Ukraine and Georgia to become independent. We realize this is our backyard, “All we ask is you not take advantage and move NATO into East Europe and the Baltic states. You have your Monroe Doctrine and we are entitled to ours.” When Gorbachev left office, in 1991 at the very end of the cold war, what did the U. S. do? The U.S. seized the moment of weakness and steadily advanced to the borders of Russia, namely the Ukraine and Georgia.  

Yes, of course, America has its long-standing Monroe Doctrine concerning foreign nations establishing military bases in the Caribbean and South America while we blissfully control smallish native economies and their flow of export-import resources. The region is America’s southern door. Russia’s part in complying with our Monroe Doctrine terms has been more or less cooperative along with other foreign nations, with one grave exception that of the intervention into Cuba which caused the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The intrusion was immediately nixed and the Soviets quickly withdrew pledging not to return; Therefore, by any sense of the word why are we meddling in another country’s sphere of influence?  

The end of the Cold War largely brought an end to the purpose and effectiveness of the NATO Alliance against Russia. Furthermore NATO has not used its commitment to assist within the best interests of the United States for more than two decades while gradually becoming a legal and financial liability. By treaty the U.S. is bound to enter and assist in wars or conflicts with any nation infringing on the rights of the 28 European and North American allies. The alliance has cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in additional defense spending for largely Europe’s benefit since its inception in 1949, sixty-four years ago when it was needed to fend off the Soviet threat. One may then reasonably come to the conclusion that some of the most prosperous industrial nations in the world have the financial means, or should have the means, to address problems within their own neighborhood.  But No, No this never seems to happen. When there is a hint of conflict, or a local crisis in the region, the burden always falls to Uncle Sam as its chief supporter. The continuation of NATO, as its charter stands at present, is a moot question which needs to be addressed.  The U. S. has its own interests in other parts of the world, the Pacific, and as we shall regrettably see below it as has kept a masterful hypocritical foot on the face of South America for ages. 

Since 1889 The United States under the chapters of the Monroe Doctrine has militarily invaded Caribbean and South American countries 54 times in order to remove an unpopular government or leader. Any undersized fledging democratically elected government in South Central America with the slightest hint of social reform or mild socialistic connection has been and will be overthrown by the United States post hast.

When democratically elected Guatemala President, Jacob Arbenz Guzman was brutally removed from office in 1954 by the CIA and the influence of the United Fruit over an unfavorable land tax, and the projected reapportionment of agricultural lands. (We don’t call them Banana Republics for no reason, it’s the major export*) We find that any democratically elected government in South America with a hint of social reform or mild socialistic connection has been and will be overthrown by the United states. Should an elected figure mention the fateful word “Land Reform” or “Equality” or”Progressive Social Justice” that particular government leader is politically dead, must flee or be eventually assassinated. The power and greed of international business joined with the policy driven CIA will curtail or eliminate South American leaders that do not bend to U. S. economic wishes. Chilean President Salvador Allende was killed during a CIA sponsored coup d’etat 1974 after nationalizing Alcoa and Kenacot Copper among others. Shortly confirmation was given by none other than Henry Kissinger to officially install one of the most brutally vicious dictators Agusto Pinochel who held the President for 18 murderous years.

This Nicaraguan dictatorship that I presently refer to was placed in power by United States Marines in the 1930’s and thereafter the Anastasio Somosa family ruled with an iron-hand from 1936 thru 1974. They became the wealthiest tyrants to ever seize office in Latin America. Somosa was finally deposed by civil war and a popular uprising in spite of American efforts to keep him in power. The Somosa group was so detrimental as a moral example to America’s South American image, that his sponsors in the U.S. State Department were overjoyed to see their prop-up despot finally depart.

When South America’s American Ambassador John Neropointe served in Honduras he oversaw the most brutal atrocities performed by the military trained University of the America graduates while they tortured and killed 60,000 nationalistic insurgents and innocence to maintain control of the country as a safe haven for Reagan’s murderous Contras then fighting a democratic elected Sandinista government in Guatemala. The death rate per population was greater than in the U. S. Civil War. Sorry, I don’t remember Russia taking advantage of the Monroe Doctrine by those means in the, the, let us say, the Crimea or Eastern Ukraine.

The invasions, coups and clandestine activities instigated, perpetrated, and perpetuated by the CIA are easily described in words, but they are costly. Hundreds of Thousands of lives of ordinary citizens, peasants, and others caught in the crossfire in order to seek and control markets. These vial acts have placed a shroud of terror over the native Peoples for decades.

When the Media driven American Public complains of Russia taking over the Crimea, or perhaps in the future Eastern Ukraine, think about this: We have invaded friendly countries to further our economic aims for more than a hundred years (Hawaii, 1893) and gotten away with it.

All the Best.

Ron Miller

* Note, At the time of the Guatemala Coup in 1954, the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles and his CIA Director brother Allen were long time holders of United Fruit securities which had significantly contributed to the old New England family fortune. Prior to taking the office of State, John Foster was for decades the principal New York City attorney for United Fruit. Other large holders of blocks of stock were Thomas Dudley Cabot, Secretary of International Affaires,  and General Robert Cutler, Head of the Security Council and a former Chairman of United fruit. Both Under Secretary of State’s Walter Bedell, and Robert Hill, the then American Ambassador to Costa Rica, would leave government service to join the Board of Directors of United Fruit after the coup.  

Advertisements