​Sanctions’ goal is regime change, no matter Cuba or Russia

​Sanctions’ goal is regime change, no matter Cuba or Russia
Obama is lifting Cuba sanctions not because they are morally wrong but due to their failure to deliver a result – which is still regime change, just like in the case of Russia, foreign affairs expert Nebojsa Malic told RT.

RT:Obama said that the policy of isolation against Havana has failed. Why is Washington using the very same approach against Moscow now?

Nebojsa Malic: Well it is a brilliant piece of cognitive dissonance really. I must admit that I'm somewhat confused by it myself, because what he has said about Cuba absolutely stands – that sanctions don't work, that this has been the wrong policy, and it is time for it to end, and that is all true.

But note that he said that the sanctions did not result in the expected outcome, but he did not say that the US government is giving up the desire to see that outcome. So the goal is still regime change, only now by other means. And the sanctions are being lifted not because they were morally wrong or objectionable or illegal, but because they did not work. And now what is going to happen is something that they think will work instead. And the goal is still regime change.

So again, there is a dose of truth and then there is a dose of sinister programming and agenda behind it that very few people are going to stop and look at. But the goal is still regime change, not it’s just trying to figure out how they are going to go about it.

RT:White House and State Department spokespersons contradict each other on whether Obama already signed new anti-Russian bill or not. Is that likely to happen and what are they based on?

NM: They are based on the fact that Russia has so far done nothing that Washington demands and the problem is it is not quite clear what Washington’s demands really are. They are saying stop the aggression in Ukraine. Well, what aggression? Is there any evidence into actually any of this going on? No. Quite the contrary there is an inflow of NATO weapons and personnel into the country. And quite frankly abysmally belligerent and criminal behavior of government in Kiev towards civilians that are technically their own. And so you have a situation in which these sanctions are threatened on the grounds of nothing at all.

And the so called off-ramp that is being mentioned is unclear. What is really expected of Moscow – to give Crimea back, to withdraw the non-existing troops? None of it is being made specific because the goal is to pressure for regime change inside Russia – that is the end game of this particular policy. It is getting rid of Vladimir Putin and his government and putting in somebody more like Boris Yeltsin.

People wait to cross a street in Havana (Reuters/Desmond Boylan)

RT:If the new round of sanctions indeed follows - how much of a blow will it be to the Russian economy?

NM: It is truly difficult to say. We have been seeing all sorts of things happening with the ruble and the dollar prices and the capital shifting back and forth, and the Central Bank policies. There is a full on economic war going on right now, under the current circumstances. What further new sanctions might do is impossible to project. I do not even think the architects of these sanctions will know themselves.

And certainly there is plenty of collateral damage. Europe, EU specifically is suffering tremendous losses from this economic war. And even the US to some extent is having problems due to major investments and projects that have been canceled, especially technology development and oil development.

So it is difficult to say. Certainly the hope by the policy makers in Washington is that further sanctions will prompt the Russian economy to collapse to the levels of 1998 and push this government out of power. How accurate these predictions are I do not know. I think they are badly mistaken.

RT:Washington reiterated numerous times that it’s open for dialogue and for a comprehensive decision to be made – how is that in-line with such moves?

NM: There is no dialogue and you have to bear in mind that the definition of dialogue in this town is: “do what we tell you, or else!” That is what is considered a dialogue. It’s not, “let’s talk this over, let's see what your point of view is, and let’s come to an understanding.” No, it is “do what you're told, or else!”

And the ‘or else’ might be sanctions, might be invasion, might be color revolutions, might be economic sabotage, electronic sabotage, all sort of things, but there is definitely always an element of threat in it.

The people in this town do not even talk to each other across the political divide, let alone talk to other countries on an equal footing. That is the whole point of the movement called American imperialism that other countries are there to do what they are told. And that is considered dialogue.

Obviously there has not been any readiness in the mainstream American politics to do any of it with even Europeans, who are technically considered allies as opposed in practice being client states, let alone Russia. And certainly the people in this country, the dissidents, the reputable and respected scholars that have spoken out against this have pillared in the media and attacked as Putin's apologists, and so on and so forth. So there is no dialogue, there are only threats.