Part 1. Forward to scientific conspiracy theories.
Part 2. Or back to pure Machiavellianism?
Part 3. From Clausewitz to Stirlitz.
Part 4. Trump as the Trump Threat Symbol
Of course, all of us are more interested in Russian political intrigues and misunderstandings, but outside the global context, that is, outside the political logic of global threats, it is unlikely that it will be possible to explain them. Therefore, we will move towards Russia gradually, starting from the American image of the Russian threat.
Probably, many still remember Barack Obama's speech at the UN on September 24, 2014, where he called Russia the second among the main threats to the world: Ebola, Russia, ISIS. For four years, it was Russia that did everything possible to defeat the other two threats to the world, making these successes even more "terrible" for the West. If we use not the ordinary, but purely political logic of the struggle between two or three wings of the global elite, how does this Obamin demarche look like?
First of all, it should be noted that a week after Obama's speech, the United States, without any UN sanction, began bombing the territory of Syria, where a civil war was already underway, into which ISIS forces wedged in from Iraq that summer. And a week before Obama's speech, the Minsk-1 armistice agreement was signed in Donbass. From what jungle or laboratories of the military-industrial complex, the Ebola virus invaded, like two other threats, strengthened the “pirate” wing of the global elite through the militaristic support.
Two years before Trump's election, such developments showed that the former purely financial political instruments of the global elite are no longer working on their own. The "pirate" wing of the globalists required an escalation of external threats. Moreover, all three options were most likely inspired by the Americans themselves. Ebola is too similar to the military version of the virus grown in the bowels of the military-industrial complex. The story of how the Pentagon left military equipment and billions of dollars in banks for ISIS in its zone of responsibility in Kurdistan, as well as trained personnel supposedly for the moderate opposition, is also known.
Promotional video:
Finally, the image of the Russian threat was revived and provoked by an armed coup in Kiev and an attempted coup in Simferopol. The American military intelligence services literally forced the Kremlin to take control of Sevastopol and Crimea as the base of the Black Sea Fleet. For the militarist, "pirate" wing of the global elite, this outcome was optimal, ensuring the legitimization of the Russophobic coup in Kiev and the outbreak of a civil war on the second-hand. Because it is the "Russian threat" based on the old propaganda yeast that is the basis for strengthening political control over the allies and the rival wings of its own elite. There was not even a need to invent anything, but simply to include ready-made mechanisms of NATO and the CIA with the State Department.
If the Russian side did not accept the victim of the "Crimean gambit", having the behind-the-scenes guarantees of the Americans and the Kiev generals obedient to them, then the NATO troops would have to land in the Crimea, but first create a threat to the Russian fleet in the form of Russian-Tatar mutual massacre and civil war with the participation of Turkish and Arab mercenaries. If even then the Kremlin had wiped itself out and would not have stood up for the Russians, then it would have become a complete moral victory for the "pirate" wing on the eve of the elections in the United States and a complete moral and political collapse of Russia, after which no one in the world would put even a cent on the preservation of the country's integrity not only to maintain military-political ties and strengthen alliances like the SCO. So, Russia had no real choice whether to play the proposed gambit with black or not.
Another issue is that the “pirate”, militaristic wing of the global financial elite, while reanimating the “Russian threat” as well as the “Islamist threat,” was aimed at positions of stronger players - competitors within the global elite itself. First of all, these are the long-standing positions of the London “money changers” in Kiev and Donbass, as well as in Iran and Syria, as well as recent positions in the Turkish leadership. The defeat of the "Donetsk", allegedly pro-Russian "oligarchs" in the Donbass, would be almost fatal for the influence of "money changers" in the entire post-Soviet space. Therefore, the "Donetsk", as well as the Prolondons "St. Petersburg", "Caucasian" and "Rostov" did everything possible to involve the Russian volunteers, and after them the "vacationers" in the confrontation in the Donbass. At the same time, the "Donetsk" oligarchs hoped to bargain on the surrender of the LPNR in exchange for maintaining their positions in Kiev,but the "pirates" have already invested billions in the escalation of the civil war, in the bombing of peaceful cities.
The question arises, why did the "pirates" need to unleash wars and physically push out, undermine the positions of the "money changers". What financial threat were they trying to fend off in this way, and why did the “pirate” threat of deprivation of inexpensive dollar loans weaken? First of all, this is the growth of the economies of China and India, but also of all other "emerging markets" such as Iran, Turkey, Indonesia. Russia is also aloof here, as it could, as before, supply oil and gas to Europe, and weapons to Asia. It is not for nothing that the emblem eagle looks in both directions. Earlier, attempts by Iran or Libya to convert trade to the euro, to get away from the dollar, resulted in sanctions, and even in direct bombing.
The political weapon of the "money changer" is the traditional bypass of sanctions, offshore, and now also "cryptocurrency" financing of transactions, money withdrawal. And besides, assistance in the issuance of competing currencies - euros, yen, yuan, not to mention the British pounds, Canadian, Australian and Hong Kong dollars. Any shadow or non-dollar financial transactions that do not bring profit to lenders from the FRS / IMF reduce dependence on them and weaken the political power of the "pirates".
The power of the “money changers”, however, depends on the presence of “pirates”, because without their pressure on trade counterparties, without levying credit and emission tribute, there is no sense in detours and maneuvers. The growth in the turnover of foreign trade in dollars leads to an increase in the turnover of domestic trade in the "euro zone", China, Japan, as well as the growth of foreign exchange transactions, exchange trading controlled by "money changers". So the influence of the "money changers" as a result of this animation is growing faster than the influence of the "pirates" themselves. In order to simply preserve or even increase their legal "lion's share", the "pirates" themselves had to invent and nurture a global "financial control" to fight offshore and shadow transactions, that is, with "money changers".
However, “financial control” is a forced reliance on nation states, without which sanctions and investigations against corruption and laundering do not work. And all national bureaucracies are more closely connected with national elites than with global financiers. Breaking the resistance of national elites with the help of the Soros "good machine" has not been successful everywhere, and even where it has worked out - the "renewed" bureaucracy is even hungrier, more corrupt and prone to offshore betrayal. So the "pirates" bet on "financial control" as a spare tool in addition to aircraft carriers seemed a win-win, but turned out to be a win-win.
Just aircraft carriers and the whole machine of the army and the military-industrial complex are more dependent on the FRS / IMF credit pyramid, and they would not jump anywhere from the need to pump up budgets. No amount of hot wars and physical seizure of resources can provide American and Western generals and gunsmiths with such incomes as the "gunboat policy" in support of "pirate" dollar loans to states, banks and corporations. But the "financial control", for all its accounting innocence, was launched and allowed into the holy of holies, into the inner lobbies and the most secret compartments of the financial machine. And besides, "financial control" was in close connection with the national intelligence services, and above all, with the main financial intelligence service, combined with the security service of the US president - Secret Service.
As long as the presidency was held by a wing of "pirates" or at least "special services" close to "pirates", it was not scary. However, Obama already turned out to be a compromise candidate and president, and under him the influence of "money changers" on the elections and US policy only grew along with the influence of European and non-Western capital. It was impossible to say directly about the growth and inadmissibility of influence, otherwise the Chinese comrades in global trade might be offended by such a “loss of face”. Therefore, all the arrows needed to strengthen financial and special services control had to be transferred to the only convenient and patient "threat to the world" - Russia.
In general, it is very likely that the predatory Hillary could well have been tempted by Chinese millions into a family fund and offshore stash. In this case, it is quite understandable why her rival, Prolondonian candidate Sanders, silently supported her candidacy, despite the leaks of fraud. And in general, this compromising material was a reliable bridle "exchanged" on the neck of a "compromise" figure, seemingly acceptable for "pirates". Otherwise, why did the FBI management immediately hushed up and swept under the carpet the testimony about the presence of a "Chinese bookmark" on Hillary's private server, from where all the traffic of letters was duplicated to the server of a representative office of a Chinese state corporation in a suburb of Washington? Now this testimony has surfaced again due to the desire of the Democrats to extort Trump.
So what else is the question, who would benefit from this “interference” in the primaries of the Democratic Party and the draining of secret intrigues between the “money changers” and what seemed like a “pirate”? Most likely, it was precisely the arbitration force of the special services, to whom this union of the two wings of the financial elite was across the board of retention of power. Otherwise, the special services and their henchmen in financial institutions and political elites could wait for a clean-up before the "pirates" with the "money changers" again began to sort things out among themselves. But to wash dirty linen in public means to weaken the still undivided power. But to blame Russia meant to strengthen it, to subordinate the allies and the entire establishment to the bloc discipline of the second Cold War.
Nevertheless, the discord between the main wings of the global elite is enough to partially break the complete subordination of the financiers to the representatives of the old elites - commercial and industrial. Moreover, even under Bush Sr. and under his son, the oil owners formed close ties with the special services. As well as representing the old money of industrialists and developers Trump.
The losing elites, pushed away from the executive branch, never immediately calm down. At all times and in all countries, political processes go through inevitable phases of attempts at revenge. Former bitter rivals, who prevented each other from seizing power and let the third force forward, cannot help but create temporary alliances to bring the situation back. So, after the interception of executive power by Yeltsin's team, about a year later, a “right-left” united opposition formed in the representative government, which tried to remove him in December 1992. But it all ended in a reshuffle in the executive leadership, just as Trump, a year after the interception of power, managed to repel the first attempt at revenge, and replaced key figures in the administration. Looks like,that there is now a longer-term impeachment attempt on the American political scene ahead of the new elections, as in the Russian policy of the summer-fall of 1993. In theory, the result of the attempt will be just as disappointing for the right-left opposition, since they failed to weaken Trump's position in advance.
However, a lot in such political nodes as October 1993 in Moscow or November 2018 depends on external forces, the position of the closest allies and major players. Yeltsin was once supported by both the leaders of the CIS and the Western powers. Trump in this sense is much more difficult. The leaders of the Anglo-Saxon allies, as well as the major powers, cannot but calculate all the options for further development, and these options largely depend on the stability of Russia's position as the main support of the wing of national-globalists, opposing the forced alliance of "pirates" and "money changers". Hence the calculation of serious consequences and the formation of the most protected position on the part of Russia.
Continuation: Part 6. Global spite of the day.