Global Research

The CBC today (Tuesday, January  10, 2016) presented the news concerning Chrystia Freeland’s new appointment as Foreign Affairs Minister for Canada’s Trudeau government, noting mainly that she was on the sanctions list from Russia.   The announcer also noted that she is of Ukrainian background and is very opposed to Russia’s supposed actions in Ukraine. 

I say supposed because the descriptor was that Russia had “rolled” into Crimea.  What wasn’t mentioned was that there were already 38 000 Russian military personnel already in Crimea, by agreement, and that Sevastopol was and always has been a primary Russian naval and military port for hundreds of years.

Nor was it mentioned that after the independence of Ukraine from the fall of the USSR (thanks to the U.S. supported and tutored drunkard Yeltsin) that Crimea had voted for greater autonomy in 1991, was granted that, and then voted for independence in 1994, won the vote but was denied its position.  The vote held with the Russian forces present  was overwhelmingly in favour of independence which at the time was assured by the presence of the Russian military.  It was a fair vote, much more so than the votes established within U.S.occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that had no ethnic/cultural ties to the U.S.

A further idea that Freeland and many anti-Russian proponents hold is that Russia invaded Ukraine and that its troubles are all caused by Russia.  This of course is hogwash, as it was a U.S. sponsored coup that overthrew a democratically elected government (with new elections only months away, perhaps indicating how scared the U.S. was of losing the vote).  Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and her cohorts spent billions of dollars in arranging for Ukraine to turn from Russia towards NATO, and succeeded to a degree but only with the violence of murder created by the Ukrainian neonazi Banderistas.  Russia did not invade but I would not doubt that they certainly assisted the Russian speaking people of the Donbas in fighting against the proposed ethnic cleansing of the region by the new neonazi Ukraine government.

That is a long preamble to the title question.  There is more.  Freeland speaks Russian, has worked and lived in Russia, and has a personal dislike of Putin.  That experience might indicate that she is an authority on Russia and to some degree that is true.  But when someone is as biased as Freeland is, they tend to look for information that only supports their view, and then try to create an image of the other as evil and nasty.

This is very similar in kind to the failures of all intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA.  When one is so personally involved emotionally in a situation, disclaimers aside, the ‘facts’ are still the facts, but are viewed and diluted through lenses of one’s belief system. To paraphrase one of her own writings, “When you have incentive to see reality in a certain way, you will see it that way.”  The subsequent analysis of the ‘facts’ relies more on emotional interpretations and suppositions than the facts allow – the current anti-Russian hysteria in the U.S. is a prime example.

Is Freeland aimed at Putin, or at Trump?

On the surface the choice would indicate that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wishes to strengthen his hard line against Russia, supporting the hegemony of the U.S. and NATO, wanting to be a leader in the New Cold War against the created evil of Putin.   Canada’s foreign policy has almost always supported that of the U.S. and in this case is standing tall and arrogant alongside the New Cold War Policy of the U.S. – which includes the policy of first strike winnable nuclear war.

The argument after Ukraine is Russia’s aggression in Georgia, where they defeated the Georgian forces in Ossetia after they were attacked by the U.S.-Israeli trained Georgian military.  Another slap in the face to U.S./NATO hegemony was the Russian success in liberating Aleppo from the terrorist forces supplied indirectly by the U.S. via our wonderful democratic ally Saudi Arabia.  Trudeau obviously enjoys his position as U.S. ally/henchman.

While all that appears to be the motivation, the other equally motivating factor is U.S. president elect Donald Trump, the two sets of ideas of course being highly intertwined.  The U.S. establishment, with Obama as the figurehead, is doing its best to demonize Russia and Putin much more so than before the election in an attempt to prevent Trump from succeeding with any rapprochement with Russia and Putin.  The real problem is not Putin so much as the wild card independence of Trump’s supposed anti-establishment mind.  However, the main argument, so deceptively transparent as to be ridiculous, is that of Russia hacking into the U.S. election in order to have Trump succeed.

Chrystia Freeland is not sanctioned by the U.S. and would be most highly welcomed by the war hawk Clinton establishment – essentially the corporate/military/bankster complex that encompasses the deep state.   With Trump she would be a pain in the…side…and would serve as an indicator that Canada will not work with Trump in relations with Putin – a plus for Trudeau in his establishment credentials.

Perhaps as another feature of his credentials, Trudeau is aiming to become one of the leaders of the pack in their self-righteous indignation over what Russia has accomplished in the face of U.S./NATO depredations economically and militarily around the world, but especially in the Greater Middle East and the near the Russian borders.

The timing of the change is important.   Trump is President of the U.S. as of January 21, 2017.

The positioning of Freeland as Minister of Foreign Affairs signals to Trump, to Putin, and to the U.S. establishment that Trudeau is remaining with his stultifying acrimony against Russia and Putin.  Perhaps a combination of ego, arrogance, and ignorance has led Trudeau to this political alignment, a wilful denial of the reality of what the U.S. has done internationally to subvert the people of the world to serve U.S. establishment purposes.  Freeland is the perfect Trudeau foil to try and avoid rapprochement with Russia as per the U.S. anti-Trump establishment.