“We will no longer use the American armed forces to build democracy in distant lands or try to rebuild other countries in our image and likeness,” US President Donald Trump announced another principle of his policy, speaking on August 22 at the Fort Mayer military base near Washington. His speech focused on the new US strategy in Afghanistan, but was projected to other regions as well. To Korea and Syria, for example, and even to Ukraine and Georgia. Trump said the White House should focus on fighting terrorism, not building democracy.
However, according to the updated strategy, “the powers of the American military in Afghanistan will be expanded, their number will increase in order to bring the military campaign (the essence of which no one has announced) in the country to a victorious end. A quick withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is not envisaged in order not to create a power vacuum, including in the regions where drugs are produced for the Anglo-Saxons, which terrorists can fill."
Old principles and new policies of Trump
Doesn't such a strategy seem strange for a smug America? Generals will not build democracy in a foreign country, but they will destroy terrorists. How will they define them, if not by the standards of American democracy? Wouldn't it be better to bring the soldiers home, as promised by Trump during the presidential election? Let the peoples themselves choose their own path to happiness.
Trump explains that the United States in Afghanistan will now pursue common interests and goals with its partners without trying to change their lifestyles, and this "principled realism will guide our actions to move forward." Partners, apparently, mean pro-American political forces and government. Or will the Taliban (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation), which control two-thirds of Afghan territory, also become partners? And if partners allow themselves to deviate from "common interests and goals" and prefer their own, what then? After all, "fundamental realism" is two subjective concepts - principle and reality. To each his own.
And what to do with ISIS units (an organization whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation), which were transferred to Afghanistan from Syria and Iraq and which representatives of Anglo-Saxon private military companies are actively preparing for the invasion of the post-Soviet Asian republics with further advancement to Kazakhstan and further to Russia? Are they international terrorists or are they pro-American?
And Pakistan will not be an outside observer in this policy. Through its territory and with his assistance, the Taliban (an organization whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation) and Al-Qaeda (an organization whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation) received American support. Pakistan is a close US nuclear ally in Asia.
Promotional video:
Many analysts were quick to declare that Donald Trump's new strategy is not feasible. Trump will not be able to reverse the foreign policy strategy that was formed and are being pursued by the neoconservatives, or neocons, and the so-called “deep government”, which practically does not change with the change of presidents, that is, the highest state bureaucracy, closely connected with financial and industrial capital. Or financial and industrial capital, closely associated with the higher bureaucracy. Congress represents their lobbyists.
Neocon Strategy "America's Money Above All!" survived many presidents and has not changed, at least since the time of the actor-president Ronald Reagan - "I have successfully played many roles, I will play this one too." It will not change now. The neocons are driving Trump into the necessary role, and he will be forced to play this role without any illusions for the future. There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, except for clan demagogy and scholasticism. But there is a common national interest - the world financial dominance of the United States. Its protection and maintenance is carried out by the army and the State Department, special services and intelligence-information and military private companies controlled by them. Thus, the United States was, is and will be the world's gendarme and the absolute master of the world order. What's new?
One cannot but agree with the above conclusions of analysts, as with a probable forecast or a theoretical model of international relations on a precedent basis. But only in theory. Because the alternative model presupposes a new world war for the redistribution of markets, which will be launched by a contender for world domination in a critical situation for himself. And this war is already going around the nuclear deterrence system. And this is practically. The opposition to American neoconservatism of American liberalism, consonant with National Socialism, does not change the situation and is unlikely to change it. The theoretical forecast lags behind practice.
Terror as an instrument of geopolitics
One of the most pressing acute problems in the world is international terrorism. This term is relatively new and absolutely incorrect, distorted in reflecting the essence of the phenomenon itself - organized network transnational terrorism (CTT). Or, on the contrary, this term denotes precisely international relations - relations between peoples in the form of terror, which is also wrong, because it is not peoples who enter into such relations.
The world community is being told that international terrorism appeared on its own, as they say, fell from the sky and creates terror for the sake of terror. This is an absolute stupidity, which is being replicated by the media knowingly or due to a lack of understanding.
Terrorism, as a system of actions, does not arise spontaneously and aimlessly. It requires certain costs, and these costs are paid by the customer interested in terror. Terror is a political and purposeful phenomenon, impossible without network organization and professional training of performers. All acts similar to terrorist attacks outside the framework of these definitions do not apply to terrorism, or at least should not apply - for this there are other articles of criminal law and the corresponding law enforcement agencies. Otherwise, the fight against terrorism will be spontaneous, reflexive and ineffective.
A systematic fight against terrorism will only be when the reasons, goals and organizational forms of terror are correctly identified, and on this basis - its tactics, methods and methods, means, signs of preparing terrorist attacks. Therefore, terrorism, as a phenomenon of a special order, must be combated by specially formed state bodies with their own special structure and professional training. Moreover, it is obligatory in interaction on security issues with all other departments and foreign partners.
There are many mysteries in the terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists in Western Europe. The main one is that they have no visible purpose. That is, terror is carried out as if for the sake of terror itself. Moreover, terrorists worsen the already bad attitude of ordinary Europeans towards refugee Arabs and migrants in general, who they themselves are. What is their benefit? And Europeans do not defend themselves either. This applies not only to citizens, but also to the police. Politicians react sluggishly to such a situation and sometimes even take the side of refugees and migrants - a criminalized environment from which perpetrators of terrorist acts are recruited. Why?
The clue lies in the events that happened in the United States on September 11, 2001. A large-scale sabotage and terrorist action in New York and Washington untied the hands of American politicians and generals in conducting military operations against the unwanted Arab states of the Mediterranean. It was a huge military-political provocation for the whole world. Reminiscent of the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 - a provocation against the Comintern in Germany and the forerunner of a great war against Soviet communism in the East.
Note that the term INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM was thrown into the media by the American special services immediately after the grandiose hoax.
From that moment on, the military actions of the American armed forces began to be carried out under the banner of fighting international terrorism and supporting democratic forces in these states, allegedly fighting against the dictatorship. NATO allies were involved in direct hostilities. As it turned out later, terrorist groups and the so-called democratic insurgents were created and supervised by American special services, the training of militants was carried out by instructors of private military companies in different countries, including Europe. Much has been written and said about this. But the main, pivotal issue of this topic is the conclusions from the results of the official investigation of those terrible September events. The international Islamist terrorist organization Al-Qaeda (organization,whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation) and its leader Osama bin Laden.
The published part of the official investigation does not stand up to scrutiny. Independent American experts concluded that the twin towers and the third high-rise building nearby collapsed as a result of a controlled explosion, which is used in the demolition of buildings in construction. The collision of aircraft with the towers and the resulting fire could not be the cause of the strictly vertical collapse of high-rise buildings, and there was no collision of the aircraft with the third tower, but it was destroyed in the same way as the other two. That is, a controlled explosion in each building was prepared in advance by experts-detonators. The remains of the hull and engines of this aircraft or other shell were not found near the Pentagon building, which the third airliner allegedly crashed into. This means that this building was blown up or destroyed in another way, different from the official version.
On the basis of an independent expert opinion, which was published in the media and the Internet, a version was formulated according to which the terrorist attack was prepared in the United States by professionals, and its performers of Arab origin, who seized the airliners in the air, were typical suicide bombers for one action. They received flight training in Germany and, "capturing" aircraft and flying them, sent them to buildings. After the collision and the outbreak of fire, the buildings were blown up.
The administration of President George W. Bush, for whom the terrorist attack was a complete surprise and caused him panic, the version of independent experts was not refuted, and a re-investigation after its publication was not scheduled. Donald Trump promised to return to the investigation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. But it is unlikely that he will be allowed to. After all, the results of such an investigation could lead America to an acute political crisis, first domestically, and then in relations with allies.
Until now, a certain background of the provocation is carefully hidden. Two years before the explosions of the towers, Islamic (interest-free) banking began to consolidate and build promising international financial projects, including with China. Eight months before the provocation, Islamic bankers made a consolidated decision to step up their position and launch an offensive in promising areas. A real threat has arisen to world (American) usury, which enslaved the real economy and world markets with loan interest and drove the industrial society of expanded capital reproduction into a monstrous crisis.
That is why the consequences of the September 11 terrorist attack were disastrous not so much for America as for the Islamic, Arab countries and for Western Europe. The so-called Arab Spring, initiated by the West, and "military coercion into democracy" led to mass migration to Europe of refugees from the devastated Arab states - former European colonies and closely connected with Europe. The migration of Arabs turned out to be so organized and paid for by someone that it did not at all look like the chaos of war. Turkey reacted to the organization of migrant flows to Europe so pragmatically that a conflict arose between Ankara and Berlin over this, and Germany was forced to pay Turkey to curb the flow of migrants. Moreover, flows of refugees from Central African countries through Tunisia and Morocco rushed to Europe. Transport of migrants to the Mediterranean coast is organized across the Sahara Desert.
Since the Eastern European peoples and governments refused to accept migrants even under the EEC quotas, the entire burden of supporting refugees fell on the countries of Western Europe. This is despite the fact that the Europeans themselves evoke hostile feelings against themselves in the Arab world, participating in the destruction of Arab states, the bombing of their cities. For what or who?
Migrants from Arab countries organize riots, commit serious criminal offenses and rampage against the local population in European cities. But a special place against this background is occupied by terrorism, which is becoming characteristic and specific for Europe.
As soon as the government of any European country shows independence in its policy and does not fit into the plans of the United States, the intensity of spontaneous and at first glance reckless terrorist attacks increases. Responsibility for them is assumed by the invisible international terrorist organization ISIS (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation) of undefined political orientation: whether it is the driving force of the "Arab spring" and world democracy, or the striking force of the Islamist dictatorship and eastern despotism.
Merkel was the first to face this. As soon as she announced that sanctions should be applied to Russia carefully, because otherwise Germany would pay for it with her own interests, a chemical plant in Bremen took off. After that, the Chancellor became very obedient to Washington, and Germany still pays in favor of the United States with its national interests for sanctions against Russia.
An example is the events in France, which supported Russia in the Syrian problem and immediately received a series of terrorist attacks on its territory, and Hollande began to behave like silk …
Or recent events in Spain. As a member of NATO and the anti-terrorist coalition, Spain is occupied exclusively with its own problems and is not active either in NATO or in the coalition. Since 2004, the Socialists have come to power in the Kingdom of Spain. They are again raising the question of the return of Gibraltar to Spain and the revision of the 1953 treaty with the United States on the use of Spanish military bases by the Americans. The basis of the financial system of Spain, the most stable in Europe, is made up of national banks with 100% Spanish capital. An important project of Spain in the Mediterranean is the Barcelona Process - a program for strengthening statehood in the countries of the Mediterranean region, economic development, social progress and the search for common approaches to solving acute international and regional problems. The so-called "Arab Spring" actually undermined Spain's policy in this direction.
And now, as if on cue, Spain is filled with migrants from Africa through Morocco. This flow of migration is increasing, and through Turkey and Italy is commensurately weakening. In the center of tourism and the capital of Catalonia, Barcelona, a movement against tourists (bees against honey) is activated, that is, to the detriment of one of the most profitable sectors of the Spanish economy. And now, finally, in August, a series of reckless terrorist attacks are committed against the crowd in Catalonia - in the rebellious province of Spain on the eve of a referendum on its independence.
It was reported that the CIA had warned the Spanish government of an impending terrorist attack in Barcelona, but the police and intelligence services were inactive. A very interesting fact. Where did the CIA get such details? Did NSA share them by hacking terrorists' correspondence on the Internet? Or did the CIA open up a secret plan of its private accomplices for provocation purposes? If the police regime in Catalonia were strengthened after this warning, which Madrid avoids, it would be in favor of the separatists in the referendum. But the restraint of the police, incomprehensible to the public, caused a storm of indignation in the press, which also strengthened the position of supporters of Catalan independence. In general, Spain was "bent" so that it would not be arbitrary and would not split off from the community of "civilized democracy" with its own socialist bias.
All European countries are under the same external influence. A small relief is given to the Eastern European states. But there is a special reason for this. Former socialist countries, looking to the West, should assess their prospects in case of abandoning "European values". They are assigned the role of NATO's eastern sub-bloc with a traditional mission from their own history: to be a buffer zone in NATO's confrontation with Russia and a supplier of cannon fodder in case of war. Poland has been chosen as the leader or the nucleus of this sub-bloc and behaves very roughly under the supervision of the "most developed democracy in the world." It allowed the CIA to place secret prisons on its territory, gave shelter to Caucasian extremists guarded by the US intelligence services, whipped up Russophobic hysteria under the guise of decommunization … Trump praised her for that.
America cannot be directly accused of organizing international terrorism, because there is not enough direct evidence of its participation in the preparation of terrorist attacks in Europe. And they won't be in public. Islamist organizations are quite autonomous in their actions, interacting with their curators through private individuals, usually through foreign private military companies and non-governmental organizations. Extremists usually pass themselves off as political opposition to the ruling regime. They clearly fulfill their function within the framework of the American neoconservative strategy of globalists, which Donald Trump is trying to replace with the social liberalism of nationalists. Will it work? America itself has long been an instrument of globalists, and its fate has fallen into the hands of the world's financial speculators. And without financial speculators, liberals are unable to ensure the greatness of America in consumption that is familiar to Americans and the whole world. And how can she live with it?
Democracy with limited sovereignty
In December 1823, American President James Monroe, in his annual message to the US Congress, proclaimed America's foreign policy doctrine. In a few words, its essence was that the United States would not interfere in the affairs of Europe if Europe did not interfere in the affairs of the American continent. In other words, the United States declared all of America from Cape Barrow to Cape Horn to be the exclusive zone of its interests. But as the economy developed, American goods and finance became cramped on their continent, and competition has its own laws. With the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the dollar began to conquer the world, and the FRS gradually became a state within a state, claiming the role of a world financial empire, on a scale no less than the Rothschild empire in Europe.
After World War II, the aggregate financial capital of American banks - Fed shareholders increased 2.4 times, while Europe was ruined. The recovery of European industry and consumer markets under the Marshall Plan made the European economy dependent on American creditors, and in promising private companies in Western Europe, a considerable share of property began to belong to American shareholders. Such is the price of helping Western European democracies to recover quickly. NATO added to this a downgrading of the political status of its members, which the Europeans call "limited sovereignty." Limited for Europe, but not for America, which is dominant in the military-political bloc.
After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR, all grounds for extending the term of the NATO treaty as a defensive alliance against the USSR disappeared. European politicians began to speak out in favor of the dissolution of NATO and a reduction in military spending. It was also a powerful argument of the left in the election campaigns. Anti-NATO and anti-American sentiments have intensified. At the same time, the financial crisis grew and competition intensified between the US and the EU, between the dollar and the euro. Radical measures were needed to preserve NATO and strengthen the leading role of the United States in Europe and in the world.
One of such measures was the sabotage and terrorist act of September 11, 2001 and the ensuing universal struggle against international terrorism. For this reason, the dissolution of NATO was canceled, the status of "limited sovereignty" was not subject to revision. Moreover, the NATO organization was replenished with new members and occupied the border on the border with Russia, a project arose to abolish the institution of national armed forces and create on their basis a unified EU army under NATO subordination, and it was also proposed to transfer the management of national security agencies to a single center within NATO. In other words, the sovereignty of European states was further limited and, in fact, lost. And the migration of refugees and terrorist attacks in Europe formed a subconscious conviction,that without Americans, European governments are incapable of solving these problems on their own. Which is shown to the world.
This is how the version of the plan of the mysterious events of September 11, 2001 in the most democratic country in the world is being formed. The famous American politician Henry Kissinger writes in his memoirs: "A new world order will emerge from chaos." The Americans are calculating and cynical towards their goal along this path. The chimera of absolute freedom of money by both Democrats and Republicans is identified with democracy.
GRIGORY VANIN, ALEXANDER ZHILIN