This calculated risk on the part of the U.S. backfired. Most U.S. government officials did not think Russia would retaliate when Georgia began the fireworks on August 7. They were wrong.

A little more than two years ago, I wrote the article "The Wrong Side Won (Again). It foretold the current tensions between Russia and the West, primarily the U.S. Not only has Russia had to deal with U.S. duplicity. The same strategy is used against any nation the U.S. wants to interfere with. Also, the same strategy of buying out a stooge government for peanuts is employed. And, finally, the same strategy of denying the stooges help when it is the U.S. time to adhere to its side of the bargain is evident. Just ask the downtrodden Native American tribes of today.

The recent elections in Belarus have been condemned by the U.S. and the European Union (EU). Both sides state they will impose sanctions and travel restrictions on Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.

Sound familiar? It should because this is yet another hypocritical action taken by the U.S. in its quest to democratize the world. Unfortunately, the EU came on board with the U.S. in this case. I thought the Europeans would have had more dignity and not mimicked Uncle Sam.

There are a few puzzling aspects to this case. Belarus has not had many internal problems, yet those who lost the election are being branded as "freedom fighters" in their country. According to Al-Jazeera News of March 23, 2006:

It seems that the "groundswell" of political opposition in Belarus was concocted by the U.S. A couple of hundred demonstrators assembled in Minsk’s central square. After five days, Belarus security moved them.

The U.S. was outraged and condemned the actions of the security forces. However, they are no different from that of U.S. police in clearing out demonstrators in the U.S. Most American demonstrators would not be allowed to protest for five days before being rounded up and taken to the clink.

Until a week or two before the elections, virtually nobody was talking of Belarus. Then, allegations that there would not be fair elections came forward, which created an atmosphere of unfair actions prior to the actual vote. This is a standard tactic by the U.S. in its psychological warfare campaign. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Larov:

Normally, countries undergoing a good economy and stability are not the targets of massive demonstrations. Belarus is no exception. Yes, there was some opposition, as there is in every country in the world. But, this was hardly a groundswell of dissident ideas with a strong following.

Now, let’s look at a map and we may see the reason for the U.S. taking such a newly-found interest in the democratic institutions of Belarus. The country is the main land transit route for Russian oil and gas to western Europe and it is surrounded by nations that have succumbed to U.S. desires, such as Poland and the Ukraine. It is the last country bordering Russia that is still independent of U.S. troops and stooges. Once a government in Belarus comes to power that favors U.S. tactics, and is bought out, the country of Russia will be surrounded by nations once a part of the Soviet Union that have changed sides. Belarus is the last outpost of an independent nation on Russia’s borders.

We all know of the U.S. quick-draw tactics of using military options to acquire its desires. Few, however, are as knowledgeable about the political tactics used to put in power U.S. stooges. In its stated quest to export democracy, the U.S. uses many non-democratic means and when the coup is accomplished, states that democracy works.

Look at Iraq. The U.S. is hailing it as a great emerging democracy. However, in the Iraqi elections, the ballot was so difficult to understand that a master of statistics would have had trouble knowing the players. Candidate names were not on the ballots. And, the largest political party in Iraq, the Ba’ath Socialists, were not allowed to run.

In Bosnia in 1995, two elections were negated and Madeleine Albright admitted that "the wrong side won." When the "right" side eventually won, the U.S. accepted the results.

The same happened in Serbia in 2000. When Milosevic won, the U.S. negated the results. When his opponent finally beat him, Albright proudly told the world that the U.S. had put $42 million into the coffers of the opposition and stated that it was money well-spent.

The recent Ukraine elections were tainted with much U.S. money and shenanigans. Other countries have fallen into the same trap.

Aristide was the elected president of Haiti. The U.S. did not like him so they arranged demonstrations against him in Haiti and eventually paid for his one-way trip to South Africa, where he lives today in exile.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was more difficult. It took 13 years with a cost of three million Iraqi deaths and almost a trillion U.S. dollars.

Democracy is a fine concept, but it may not be in the best interests of some nations. No one seems to debate this issue. Selective democracy stinks. In most cases, the people who have to adhere to this U.S. institution are far worse than they were before under not-so-democratic regimes. I don’t want to get into a debate about the merits of democracy. It has been well-discussed in the past.

How about a democratic country that practices democracy at all levels being branded a totalitarian state? This is happening right now with Venezuela. The country is more democratic today than at any time in its history and is a vanguard for future democratic movements in the world. But, the U.S. does not like Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez. In this instance, the U.S. outright lies and accuses one of the world’s leading democrats of threatening democracy.

A recently-released document, called "Strategy for National Security, 2006," stated, "In Venezuela, a demagogue inundated with petrol money is undermining democracy and trying to destabilize the region." This preposterous statement is official U.S. doctrine against the president and people of Venezuela.

Chavez, however, is not one to be mute in criticism of his regime. Here’s how he replied to the U.S. security report:

Sounds good to me.