It can be said, with absolute certainty, that never in the history of humanity has a nation gone to war to bring a better standard of living to its enemies. However, that is exactly the context in which the West now sells its endless and countless wars. It sells this to three audiences: home front, the enemy and foreign neutrals/allies. The words the West, specifically, the Anglo-West uses are coached in terms of human rights, prosperity and freedom, though the results of those wars, both for the attacked victims (the West has not been directly attacked for 50 years by any military power, with the exception of Argentina) and the people on the home front, have proven far from it. Simply put, nations go to war to improve their own wealth and power, or at the very least to improve the wealth and power of the rulers.
On the home front, the public is brainwashed to see everything in absolute black and white, good guy, bad guy. Of course that their own nations will be the ones striking first, destroying the lives of millions and occupying the lands of the fallen, stripping them of resources and implementing puppet regimes, is to be ignored and seen as the acts of the self-righteous, or rather "righteous" Western "democracies" coming to save the poor and run down from themselves. In the mean time, the war costs in debt, inflation and loss of rights and freedoms and the sacrifices of blood go beyond any benefits perceived or real.
To the enemy, the West sells these ideas in order to create a fifth column, who will eagerly assist in the defeat of their own nations. Now some governments absolutely should be over thrown and destroyed, the Soviets for example, but it can only be done, if it is really to benefit the people, by those oppressed peoples. It is a far cry from supporting a local revolution and civil war and invading. One is by the oppressed peoples and the other is to oppress the people, just by a different set of smiling sociopaths declared a righteous war, a mission accomplished or a war we can not afford to loose. When Carthage and Rome fought, Carthage, there was no doubt in Carthage that Rome deserved to rule, it did not and it was a ludicrous idea. The fight was to the end, the bitter end and to the defeated when destruction at worst and slavery at best.
To the neutrals and allies it is to share the burden and the sacrifice, the cost, while the benefits are kept only to those launching the oppression.
Look at Iraq. Was Saddam a bastard? Of course he was, but to say, 6 years later, that the people, those still alive or not in exile, are better off than under him, is equally ludicrous. The nation is destroyed, infrastructure cratered, violence of the mass scale a daily, some times, hourly event. The wealth of the nation sucked out to the victors and their puppets.
In truth, the war was all about that wealth, even though it was coached in words of human rights and self defense. The fact alone, that little to no thought went into the post war period demonstrates this. Additional facts, such as the lack of the WMD and their facilities, the issue of Saddam, two months earlier, negotiating the Food For Oil Program into Euros from Dollars, equally lends credence to this.
From today's vantage point, even the Cold War is easily seen to be the farce it always was. This is not meant in any way as a defense of the Soviet Institution or the murderous dictator Stalin, however, the confrontation, that lasted from 1948 to 1991 and cost hundreds of thousands of lives, was in itself a farce by the West. The Anglo-West claimed that it was defending democracy and capitalism from the Soviet Threat, but with the exceptions of Eisenhower, Reagan and Thatcher, the Anglo-West has been on a programmed and well run decent into that very Marxism that is now accelerating towards its final lap to victory. It would seem that the Anglo elites were not so much worried about Marxism as to loosing power to others on their way there. Now they still get their Marxism, which enthrones them as the ruler elite and they get to enjoy it also.
NATO was organized in 1949 and the Soviet response to the "defense" block of military powers, did not take form until 1955. If NATO had been truly defensive, it would have come after a Soviet military organization, not predating it by 6 years. Further, upon its formation, Stalin actually asked to join it but was refuted. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no lifting of human suffering but instead a decent into a new abyss for 8 years, as the West, upholding my original point, raped and plundered the assets of Russia, utilizing a alcoholic and near mindless Yeltsin and local thieves to carry out this rape. Not until Putin and now Medvedev came to power to defend and rebuild Russia was there any hope of anything but more suffering in the future. Of course they were instantly branded as anti-human rights enemies of the West and the western peoples again asked to sacrifice even more of their blood and wealth to fight this new "menace".
Now, less than 20 years after the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the leaders of NATO, the Anglo nations, daily come to resemble the enemy they spent hundreds of billions against. The same elites are in power, of course, be it directly on the thrones or in the shadows holding the coat tails.
Yet their people, fed on propaganda, never stop to ask: why did they sacrifice in the Cold War, when they are now moving willing down the same road to the same end results as those they supposedly fought against?
The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his website Mat Rodina
The choice of the city of Helsinki is not incidental as the capital of Finland had hosted US-Soviet negotiations on the limitation of nuclear stockpiles in 1969