Before the US-Israeli aggression, the following criticism was levelled at multipolarity: "What has multipolarity gained the people? Has it improved the lives of workers?"

With the US-Israeli aggression, this time a "right-wing criticism" of multipolarity began to emerge: "Multipolarity paved the way for the US to recklessly spread across the world."

You would think the US was sitting quietly in its corner, and that the Global South countries, led by China, provoked the US by wanting multipolarity! In other words, if multipolarity had not begun, the US would not have spread recklessly across the world!

Yet the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, took place when there was no multipolarity and the US enjoyed unipolar dominance.

Anti-democratic mindset

Although we call it "criticism from the right," what is actually being done is less criticism and more "justification"—manufacturing excuses for the aggressiveness and recklessness of imperialist America. 

Some journalists take this justification to an even cruder level on social media, saying "it's not about oil, it's about democracy" or "Maduro is corrupt, Maduro is a dictator". On this basis, they try to convince the public that there is a supposedly "moral" aspect to the US attack on Venezuela. 

However, "attacking one country on the grounds that there is no democracy" and defending this is itself undemocratic from start to finish. A democrat wants the people of a country to hold those responsible for corruption to account because... 

The issue is oil and the petrodollar system

On the other hand, even Americans in the US cannot defend the lie that is widely reported in our media, that "the issue is not oil, the issue is democracy." Since 3 January, when US President Donald Trump attacked Venezuela, his main focus has been discussing with the executives of US oil companies how to share Venezuela's oil. 

The message conveyed by Trump, who met with around twenty oil company executives, is this: "When you bring Venezuela and the US together, we control 55 per cent of the world's oil."

But wasn't the issue supposed to be about oil? The issue is clearly oil. Of course, the US does not need oil for its own use, but how much oil is produced, how its price is determined, and in which currency it is sold are issues of critical importance to the US. More concretely, the sale of oil in dollars is vital to the US economy. The US effectively considers China's purchase of oil from Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia in yuan and other currencies instead of dollars to be a cause for war. 

However, the "little Americans" of "Little America" continue to say on social media that "it's not about oil, it's about democracy." Those who say that "multipolarity paved the way for the US to spread recklessly across the world" will probably say that "if China didn't buy oil with yuan, the US wouldn't be aggressive!"

They blamed Gaddafi, not the US

Unfortunately, this kind of "intellectual" attitude exists in Turkey as well as in the world; these ideas are defended in politics, academia, the media and the bureaucracy. 

Yesterday, they justified the US attack on Iraq by saying "but there is no democracy in Iraq" and blamed Saddam Hussein!

Yesterday, they justified the US attack on Libya by saying, "But there is no freedom in Libya," and they sent the bill to Muammar Gaddafi!

Yesterday, they justified the US attack on Syria by saying, "But there is no justice in Syria," and they sent the bill to Bashar al-Assad. 

Today, they are attacking Venezuela, citing "but there is poverty in Venezuela" as justification, and blaming Nicolas Maduro... 

Blaming the oppressed, not the oppressor

Is it only Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela and others that the US attacks? What about Turkey?

The US stages a coup, and they blame the leftists. The US conducts economic operations, and they blame the S-400. The US puts sacks over the heads of our soldiers in Iraq-Sulaimaniyah, and they ask, "What are they doing there?" The US imposes heavy sanctions on Turkey because of the Cyprus Peace Operation, and they blame Ecevit.

In short, they are blaming the victims, not the aggressors; the oppressed, not the oppressors.