Part of the motivation for the US and Western aggressiveness towards Russia can be traced to Russians being a Slavic ethnic group. Slavs were one of Europe’s original sources of cheap labor and slaves, and, indeed, the word ‘Slave’ derives from the word ‘Slav’:
“slave (n.) late 13c., …originally “Slav” (see Slav); so used in the secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples. Ex: ‘This sense development arose in the consequence of the wars waged by Otto the Great [of the Roman Empire] and his successors against the Slavs, a great number of whom they took captive and sold into slavery.’ [Klein]”
Slav was actually “Spelled Slave c. 1788-1866, influenced by French and German [word] ‘Slave’.”
“Russians (Russian: русские, russkiye) are an East Slavic ethnic group native to Russia, who speak the Russian language and primarily live in Russia.”
The West still thinks the place of Slavs is as slaves. Al Jazeera reported in 2013 that the UK, for example, portrays “Eastern Europeans as criminals and barbarians”, and it is hard to top the level of propaganda the US has put out against Russians over the years.
The reason for the ceaseless campaigns demonizing and dehumanizing these groups is elite Westerners are annoyed that some of these Easterners, who were traditionally, and are supposed to remain, cheap labor and material sources, have become uppity and had the gall to defy their masters by using their own resources, creating currencies and banks, and building big nuclear deterrents – not things to which the West takes kindly.
A root of the current brand of Slavic dehumanization propaganda goes to 1917, when Russian monarchy was overthrown by the repressed population. In the West, plans were quickly drawn to reverse the rebellion. For his part, leading British figure Winston Churchill called the Russian uprising part of an evil “Jewish” conspiracy to throw off the yoke, not just in Russia but in Hungary, Germany, in fact, as he said, “worldwide”. Churchill had also hoped to prevent in Cuba the emergence of another free “black republic” like the one in Haiti after the slaves there revolted and overthrew their “owners”; in British-controlled India Churchill watched 3 million Indians starve to death, asking simply whether the anti-British-colonial leader, Gandhi, was “dead yet”; in Iraq he wanted to use various forms of gas, from poison on down, to quell uprisings against British tyranny; in Kenya he set up rape camps to try to teach the “blackamoors” to stay in line.
Hence, sticking to their principles, the US and West swiftly invaded Russia after the 1917 revolt and attacked the movement, with Britain gassing it, to try to reverse yet another take-down of the masters (and, presumably, help the “Aryan stock” continue to “triumph”, as Churchill promised it would).
The threat of the West losing profits, the same threat emanating from Cuba, Haiti, India, Iraq, Kenya, and everywhere else, was, in the case of Russia, referred to by Western propaganda as “the threat of communism”, says Prof. Noam Chomsky, agreeing with Yale military historian John Lewis Gaddis.
A guiding principle of the mindset that will kill or rape you if you try to break your chain was succinctly expressed by the leader of the US oligarchs at the time of the invasion of Russia, Woodrow Wilson:
…the doors of the nations which are closed against [the manufacturer and financier] must be battered down … even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.
This remains a central mandate of the West as it flirts with nuclear confrontation, which could kill or maim everyone, in the service of putting down another group of “barbaric” Slavs, a “black republic”, an “evil” Jewish prominence, a “blackamoor” rebellion – any case of “defiance” of the Western godfather and financier.
Author focuses on force dynamics, national and global. @_DirtyTruths