by Christopher C Black
The latest Sea of Azov provocations in Crimea and the constant rumble of war preparations by the Ukrainians, obviously backed and most likely egged on by NATO, indicate Washington and its vassals are not yet ready to give up their dangerous harassment of Russia.
Calls by Canada’s National Defence Committee for increased “sanctions” that is, economic warfare, against Russia, and for an increased NATO presence in the Black Sea, directly threatening Russia’s southern flank and its Crimea territory, used the term “revisionist power” to describe Russia. This term has also been used by American and NATO diplomats and generals concerning China. It is a term that is never defined. To Marxists it rings of not being true to the cause of revolution, and that is, until recently, its most common usage. Lately it has been used to label anyone who questions official or standard narratives of history with the sense of condemnation for “revisiting” the facts and constructing an alternative narrative that more closely fits the facts. If you claim the attacks on Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria were acts of aggression instead of” humanitarian interventions”, you are now labelled a “revisionist.” If you deny Russia influenced the elections in the USA or Europe or deny their new allegations of Russia taking over social media, or [claim] that Ukrainian ships violated Russian waters in the Kerch Strait, you are a “revisionist.” In other words it is a term of censorship. So the adoption of the word by the NATO war machine in its propaganda against Russia and China, as a strategic concept, is puzzling. Are the Russians and Chinese betraying a revolution? Are they rewriting history? Since it is almost never defined in the articles or essays pumped out by all the propaganda organs of NATO the public is left guessing as to what it can mean-but one thing they are sure of, it must be bad.
The first time I saw it being used was in a 2014 article in the blog of an American right-wing think-tank and since then it has been used repeatedly by US and UK think tanks, in speeches by NATO politicians, in their policy papers, tweets, and press conferences but, again, never is the term explained. It’s as though they are speaking a secret code to themselves. You are left to understand the code or find the meaning in the subtext. But one place we can look to try to understand what they mean and why they are using this term now as a regular part of their propaganda is the US National Defense Strategy of 2018, the summary of which states,
“The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the re-emergence of long-term, strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape the world consistent with their authoritarian model-gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions.”
And, that after World War Two,
“The United States and its allies and partners constructed a free and open international order to better safeguard their liberty and people from aggression and coercion. Although this system has evolved since the end of the Cold War, our network of alliances and partnerships remain the backbone of global security. China and Russia are now undermining the international order from within the system by exploiting its benefits while simultaneously undercutting its principles and rules of the road.”
In other words Russia and China are “revisionist” because they do not accept the “international order” constructed by the USA, the veto authority the Americans impose over other nations, a prime example of which is the American pressure applied to the servile government of Canada to arrest Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou, in order to cripple that company, the Chinese economy, to pressure Iran, and which has damaged the Canadian peoples relationship with China and the Canadian economy.