Most Americans have become aware recently of Vladimir Putin’s aggressive annexation of Crimea, part of Russia’s neighbor, Ukraine — and of his support for a Russianallied separatist revolt against Ukraine’s government. To stand up to these challenges, the U.S. is now shipping heavy weapons and troops to bolster Ukraine’s defenses against Russia, while the U.S. media informs us about our new Cold War.

There’s an alternative version of how this dangerous military confrontation between the world’s two nuclear superpowers has come about — one in which the U.S., not Russia, is the aggressor. This version — believed by some Americans, many Europeans and (not surprisingly) most Russians — holds that America created a “regime change” in Ukraine. U.S. Undersecretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, standing between ExxonMobil and Chevron banners in a YouTube video, tells of how the U.S. spent more than five billion dollars on “democracy promotion” and “helping Ukraine achieve its European aspirations.” According to a 2014 edition of Oriental Reivew, she was also taped telling US Ukraine Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, “Yats is the guy,” referring to the man who they’d chosen to be prime minister following the coup they’d “midwifed.”

The coup ousted a democratically elected, left-leaning government and replaced it with a U.S.-chosen one containing significant numbers of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. The new government could be counted on to open the resource-rich country to corporate penetration, but, more importantly, to join NATO, bringing U.S.-allied forces into yet another position along the Russian border.

Is this necessary to protect the “free world” from a dangerous and aggressive Russia? That’s the story presented by the U.S. media.

The alternative version holds that the true aim of the coup in Ukraine is to destabilize Russia itself, leading to “regime change” there. In a Washington Post op-ed, neo-con Carl Gershman — involved with Nuland and Pyatt in creating the Ukraine regime change — called the coup an important interim step towards toppling Putin, who might “find himself on the losing end, not just abroad, but in Russia itself.” Ideally, the fall of Putin would pave the way to significant western ownership of Russia’s lucrative oil and natural gas resources — resources even larger now, with off-shore drilling possible along Russia’s ice-free northern coast. Also, a Russian regime change could spell the end of BRICS, Moscow’s new economic partnership with Brazil, India, China and South Africa, which threatens to dent the dominance of the U.S. dollar.

How does this “regime change” work? First, topple the Russiafriendly Ukrainian government, presenting Putin with a lose-lose choice: Give up Russia’s one warmwater naval base, located on Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, or protect the base and be branded an aggressor. Losing the base would seriously impair Russia’s naval strength, weakening Putin in the eyes of his military and his people. On the other hand, protecting the base would provoke global outrage at Russia’s aggression, and justify western retaliation.

As we know, Putin chose to defend the base. He sent Russian troops in unmarked uniforms into Crimea. No shots were fired, and the troops were welcomed by the great majority of the population there, who are Russian-speaking and Russian culturally (Crimea having been part of Russia for nearly two centuries). In a referendum, held soon afterwards but discounted by the west, almost all of Crimea’s population voted for reunification with Russia. The Russian parliament ratified their country’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in March, 2014. Other Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine near the border with Russia voted for local autonomy from the new right-wing Ukrainian government — which, in their view, had been installed by an illegitimate coup.

Fighting broke out between the forces of the new pro-American government in Kiev and the Russianspeaking residents of Ukrainian areas near the Russian border. The massacre by burning of unarmed separatists in the port city of Odessa by neo-Nazi government militiamen went unreported by the western media. The downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was blamed on Putin and his separatists before any evidence had been collected — and U.S. satellite images and black box information are still unavailable. The New York Times and the Washington Post are leading the western press in vilifying Putin, with a single mindedness unmatched since their build-up for the Iraq War.

Excoriated by the western press, Putin and his country have been hit with punitive sanctions, curtailing Russian imports and exports and sending the value of the ruble tumbling. The resulting economic hardship hasn’t yet diminished Putin’s popularity at home, but in time discontent within Russia will undoubtedly grow. NATO is conducting large-scale military exercises near Russia’s borders in the Baltic States. American military commanders are publicly discussing pre-emptive missile strikes against targets inside Russia, according to a June issue of Navy Times. Neo-con Victoria Nuland recently told “Yats” and Poroshenko, the Ukrainian leaders she helped choose, “We stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine, and reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea,” according to a May statement from the U.S. State Dept. Press Office.

The drums of war are thumping. Will the threat of war be enough to collapse Putin, giving the U.S. the prized regime change it wants? Will we launch our nukes preemptively, hoping that our growing anti-ballistic missile defense shield will protect us from Russia’s retaliatory strikes? Will a flight of geese accidentally trigger the hair-trigger launch-on-warning computer systems that control modern nuclear arsenals?

We’re playing with fire. Literally. For what? For more oil, when we’re choking on what we already burn? For complete global domination, when we have no realistic military or economic rivals?

Is risking nuclear war worth these possible gains?

———

Eric Herter, a military advisor in Vietnam, later was the Associated Press video producer there, is a member of PeaceWorks and lives in Brunswick.